2013 (4) TMI 521

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the outset, learned counsel or the assessees pointed out that there is a mistake in noting the appearance for the assessee at the time of hearing on the appeals, inasmuch the name of one 'P.V.Ramachandra Rao' was mentioned whereas the name 'Shri N.Purnachandra Rao' should have been mentioned. We find, there is indeed a mistake apparent from record in noting the appearance on behalf of the assessees in the cause title of the order. We accordingly rectify the same, and direct that the name 'Shri N.Purnachandra Rao' should be read in place of 'Shri P.V.Ramchandra Rao' against 'Assessees by' in the appearances part of the cause-title of the order of the tribunal dated 14.12.2012. We order accordingly. 3. It is further mentioned that at the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the directions of the Tribunal for substantial cause under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules and not as an additional evidence. Reiterating these contentions, learned counsel for the assessee has also filed written submissions, and submitted that there is mistake in the order of the Tribunal in appreciating the facts of the case in relation to this issue, and as such the order of the Tribunal on this issue is liable to rectified or recalled. 4. The learned Departmental Representative on the contrary, strongly supported the order of the Tribunal, stating that there is no mistake apparent from record, as pointed out by the assessees in the present petitions. 5. We heard both sides and perused the order of this Tribunal dated 14.12.2012, in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ance of the additional evidence, no cognizance can be taken by us, while adjudicating upon the issue in dispute. Even accepting that letter also does not lead us to any conclusion so far as assessee's claim of mortgaging the property is concerned, as the said letter does not establish the fact that the property in question was actually mortgaged with the bank. That apart, the language of S.2(22)(e) is clear and unambiguous and does not leave any scope for interpreting it in a different manner. The said provision being a deeming provision, it has to be interpreted strictly in accordance with the spirit of the language contained therein. As we have already reiterated hereinabove, the payments made by the company towards advances to the assess....