TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (11) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record justifying rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in recalling its earlier order dated March 13, 1987 ?" 2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1974-75. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows : The assessee-opposite party has been assessed to Income-tax in the status of "registered firm". In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1974-75, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had shown deposits of Rs. 1,49,360 from 83 persons. It was claimed by the assessee that they....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons entered in the books of accounts were nothing but to support the story. We, therefore, hold that the genuineness of the credits cannot be accepted." 4. Thereafter, the assessee had moved Misc. Appln. No. 34/All/1989. By moving that application, it was pointed out that the observation made in the order of the Tribunal to the effect that the goods had been supplied to different parties, on the same day at the same place, is factually incorrect. It was further pointed out that M/s. Kishori Lal Kedarnath is a party situated at Siswa Bazar, whereas M/s. Babulal and Co. is a firm situated at Barhalganj. It was stated in the application (that) Siswa Bazar and Barhalganj are two different tehsils of district Gorakhpur and that the assessee-f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of parties, which have been filed by the assessee, the assessee has mentioned the address of M/s Kishori Lal Kedarnath at Siswa Bazar and of Babulal and Co. at Barhalganj. That being so it cannot be said that supplies to the said two parties were made at the same place. We, therefore, hold that the mistake which has been pointed out on behalf of the assessee is apparent from record and needs rectification." 6. We have heard Sri R. K. Upadhyay, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. 7. Sri Upadhyay, learned standing counsel, submitted that the assessee- opposite party had filed an application seeking rectification of the Tribunal's order dated Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y was situated at Barhalganj, which is at a considerable distance. Therefore, the adverse inference drawn was on incorrect facts, which was rightly rectified by the Tribunal, vide its order dated June 21, 1988. According to him, it was an error apparent on the face of the record and did not admit of any debate. The plea that the Tribunal has exercised the power of review is wholly misconceived. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. From the order of the Tribunal dated March 13, 1987, reproduced hereinbefore, we find that the Tribunal had drawn an adverse inference on the basis of the supplies made by the assessee-opposite party to some of the parties and givi....