2012 (10) TMI 330

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in M.A. No. 46/Del/2011 in I.T.A. No. 1240/Del/2010 & C.O. No. 184/Del/2010, rejecting appellant's miscellaneous application under Section 254 (2) of the Act.   3. The Tribunal found that there is no mistake in the order, which requires correction. The assessee's plea amounts to review of the order, which is not permissible under Section 254 (2) of the Act. Since no mistake, much less apparent was found on the record, which can be rectified under Section 254 (2), the application was dismissed.   4. The appellant-assessee has preferred the appeal on the following alleged substantial questions of law:-   "(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no mistake found on record, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the AR. Various documents seized and referred to in the AR's submissions lead to unmistakable conclusion of fact that equipments, namely Excimer Laser Corneal Surgery System, Lensmeter & Ultrasonic Pachymeter were purchased by the assessee for which proforma invoice was dated March 6, 2001 (page 2 of Annexure A-26 of seized material and invoice was dated March 16, 2001 (page 2 of Annexure A-26). It was dispatched from Japan on 16.3.2001 (page 3 of A-26). The assessee made payments towards these items on 28.3.2001 which is clear from bank statements. These goods were customs cleared on 28.3.2001 (page 17 of A-26). It can be presumed beyond doubt that goods were cleared on 28.3.2001 because there is nothing to indicate that the assessee paid ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... sweeping and general statement, it has been held that AO was in a hurry and did not consider the facts without giving any basis for that and further holding that the assessee was a frequent importer of surgical machines. The issue in question is simply as to whether the machinery was used for her profession till 31.3.2001. The burden to prove that the machinery was used for her profession squarely lies on the assessee. No details have been filed before us to demonstrate the same. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to reverse the order of the CIT (A) and restore that of AO. Revenue's appeal is allowed." 7. It is submitted by Shri Agrawal that the Tribunal has considered the wrong bill of Om Logistics Ltd (carrier), which actuall....