TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... vs CIT, 256 ITR 331 (Raj.) 2. Kanehya Lal Jangid vs ACIT, 217 CTR 354 (Raj.) 3. CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmal, 87 ITR 34 (SC) 4. R.B.N.J. Naidu vs CIT, 29 ITR 194 MP) 5. DCIT vs Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 6. CIT vs Lovely Exports Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC) 7. Nemichand Kothari vs CIT, 263 ITR 254 (Guj.) 8. Tola Ram Daga vs CIT, 59 ITR 632 (Assam) 2.2 It is further stated that while deciding 3rd ground of appeal relating to cash creditors, the ITAT wrongly considered the bank account no. as cheque no. and came to the conclusion that they did not tally. Accordingly , it is submitted that mistake is apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal. 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom his bank account which is also evident from the copy of bank account of the assessee as well as of Shri Jagdish Prasad. In light of above the finding of the Hon'ble Tribunal in para 11 contains a mistake which is apparent on the face of record and requires to be rectified. (b) In respect of Shri Hanuman Prasad S/o Shri Sahi Ram. (i) The perusal of the copy of account and the bank statement which is on record shows that on 01/04/2006 the assessee had a credit balance of Rs. 3,19,000/- . (ii) The perusal of account further shows that on 09/05/2006 the assessee issued a cheque bearing No. 036242 drawn on Punjab National Bank for Rs. 6,35,000/-. This cheque is credited in the account of Shri Hanuman Prasad in his bank account maintained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Singh and the word TR (Transfer from one account to other account with the same branch) was used by the bank. (iv) That on 22/12/2006 the appellant received cheque of Rs. 2,75,000/- bearing number 126686 from Shri Jodha Singh which is also appearing in his bank account. From the above it is clear that the finding recorded by the Hon'ble Tribunal contains a mistake which is patent from the face of record. (d) In respect of Shri Jagroop Singh S/o Shri Santa Singh. (i) The AO made an addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- for credit appearing in the name of Shri Jagroop Singh s/o Shri Santa Singh. The assessee submitted that in the account of Shri Jagroop Singh S/o Santa Singh there is no such credit entry and in support of this he filed copy of acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on several decisions as mentioned below which had direct bearing on the issue but the same has not been considered by the Hon'ble Tribunal due to over site which also constitute a mistake on the face of record: - a] CIT v/s Daulat Ram Rawat Mal (87 ITR 349) b] R.B.N.J Naidu v/s CIT (29 ITR 194) c] Rajshree Synthetic Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT (256 ITR 331) d] DCIT v/s Rohini Builders (256 ITR 360) e] Kanhaiya Lai Jangid V/s ACIT (217 ITR 354) f] CIT v/s Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (216 CTR 195) In light of above it is clear that order of the Hon'ble Tribunal contains number of factual mistakes which are apparent on face of record and because of factual mistakes the conclusion drawn requires to be rectified and for this purpose I request that o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proved from the bank account. It is also noticed that the Tribunal has mentioned that the cheque no vide which amount was deposited in the bank account and cheaue no. recorded in the books of account did not tally. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that ITAT had mentioned the bank account no. as cheque no. by mistake and thereafter concluded that cheque nos. did not tally. Our attention was drawn towards page no. 11 of the Tribunal order dated 9-09-2011. On the said page, it is mentioned that in the account of Shri Jagdish Prasad, an amount of Rs. 3.00 lacs was deposited on 20-04-2006 vide cheque no.218166 whereas in the assesee's bank account cheqaue no. is 036235. Hence, cheque nos. are not tallied. It is noticed that cheque no....