TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1079
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he claim that an application U/s 154 of the Act was filed by the assessee on 08.09.2008. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has confirmed the finding of the ld. CIT(A) on the factual aspect of the point that there was no acknowledgement of filing of the alleged rectification petition dated 08.09.2008. The ld. AR has further contended that the said application filed by the assessee duly bears the stamp of office of the ld. CIT(A)-III, Jaipur however, it is a routine practice in the office of taxing authorities that no proper receipt is issued but only a stamp is put on the copy of the document/application. Therefore, when the assessee has filed a copy of application duly stamp of office of the ld. CIT(A) dated 08.09.2008 then not acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same was barred by limitation being filed after expiry of 4 years from the date of order dated 10.09.2004. The assessee contended before the Tribunal that the said letter dated 18.02.2011 was not a fresh application U/s 154 of the Act but it was only a reminder filed before the ld. CIT(A) to decide the petition filed u/s 154 of the Act on 08.09.2008. Thus, the assessee raised this issue which is purely factual in nature and can be verified from the record of the ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal while deciding this issue in assessee's appeal has duly reproduce the orders of the ld. CIT(A) dated 08.10.2004 as well as dated 18.01.2013 whereby the application filed U/s 154 of the assessee was rejected by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground of limitation. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd of natural justice the rectification is permissible in the eyes of law." Thus, it is clear that the crux and substance of the contentions and case of the assessee was duly recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order. It is not necessary and even not appropriate to record each and every word and sentence of the submissions of the parties but if the pith and substance of the contention of the parties are recorded in the order the same is sufficient to show that the Tribunal has considered the contention of the parties. The Tribunal has decided the issue in para 6 and 6.1 of the impugned order as under:- "6 I have heard both the sides at some length. I have also perused the records available before me. First of all I shall deal with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that why there was no receipt no. on the stamp. How an office stamp was affixed on the said rectification petition is beyond understanding. Without commenting any further, I hereby hold that the learned CIT(Appeals) is justified in not entertaining the alleged petition filed u/s 154 of I.T. Act. The finding, on facts stated by him should not be disturbed, specially when no evidence from other side is placed before me. 6.1 As far as the question of limitation prescribed under the Act, it is Worth mentioning that section 154(7) prohibits that no rectification or amendment shall be made by an officer of the Revenue Department after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e grounds raised before me are hereby dismissed." Thus, it is clear that the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the factual matrix of the issue and finally come to the conclusion that the assessee has not produced any material/evidence to establish it beyond doubt that the assessee has filed alleged application u/s 154 of the Act on 08.09.2008. Even at the time of this miscellaneous application the assessee has not produced any document or record to prove that the alleged application u/s 154 of the Act dated 08.09.2008 was filed before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee is harping on the point that the Tribunal should presume that such application was filed by the assessee when the assessee has claimed so because the stamp of the ld. ....