TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that the Tribunal has wrongly noted that the addition was confirmed by learned CIT(A) in the individual case. For ready reference, relevant portion of the Misc. Application is hereby reproduced. "Brief facts of the case are that search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the various premises of Shri Sendhabhai M Desai and others on 28.08.1997. Certain incriminating documents annexed as A-37 (loose paper file) were found and seized from SABERA Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Various paper at Sr. No. 119 to 127 evidenced land transaction of sales of Rs. 2,07,58,000/- and purchases of Rs. 1,92,70,000/-. Shri Sendhabhai M Desai had admitted said transaction in the hands of partnership concern consisting of 6 partners in the statement recorded dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... BD of the IT Act, resulting in deletion of all additions. The Hon'ble ITAT vide para No. 19 and 20 of the order stated that "the addition was admittedly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in his individual case. Thus on the date of initiation of block assessment proceedings under section 158BD, in the case of AOP on 06.01.2003, there was no doubt about who is to be assessed in respect of the same seized material found during the course of the search." There is mistake of facts in the order of the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No.154/Ahd/2006 in IT(ss)A No.154/Ahd/2006 dated 22.01.2010 (Para No.19 & 20) that addition on the issue involved has been confirmed on substantive basis in the case of Shri Sendhabhai M Desai (individual). The same is howe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otective basis in the case of the AOP. That question was discussed at length. The Tribunal in paragraph 19 has noted that the impugned protective assessment was made in the hands of the AOP on the basis of a statement made by Sri Sendhabhai M. Desai. That statement was recorded at the time of search conducted on 28.08.1997. However, the Tribunal has given a clear finding that although the AO had noted the gist of the statement but that did not lead to a conclusion that the impugned income pertained to the AOP. Even, the formation or the existences of the AOP was not established. It was also noted by the Tribunal that the seized material did not belong to Mr. Desai in individual capacity. There was no doubt about the assessment in the hands ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i, Individual, has confirmed the addition. In fact that was the source of the mistake. The impugned mistake, if at all, did not attribute to Tribunal. Moreover, the matter was decided not only because of that reason but it was decided on the merits of the case. Undoubtedly, it is correct that vide an order in the case of Mr. Desai in individual capacity learned CIT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 12th April, 2000 had deleted the impugned addition, relevant portion from page 50 is reproduced below: "It has also been argued that the AO has not brought on record any cogent material and/or independent clinching evidences that the appellant has acted as broker to the alleged land deal transactions. The authorized representative vehemently ....