TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re 1) which shows receipt of cash Rs. 18,05,000 in respect of sale of land. 2.2 The DDI, Unit IV (1), Investigation Wing, Mumbai has recorded a statement on oath of the Applicant on 15.03.07. 2.3 The Assessing Officer has then issued a notice under section 153A on 07.12.07. 2.4 The Applicant accordingly filed his return of income on 31st March, 2008 in response to notice under section 153A declaring total income Rs. 16,36,446; the Applicant had earlier filed on 6th July, 2004, a return of income pursuant to section 139 of the Act declaring total income Rs. 16,53,560. 2.5 The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) dated 27.5.08 together with a questionnaire requiring the Applicant to furnish the details mentioned therein. 2.6 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Applicant filed a revised computation of total income with the Assessing Officer under cover of letter dated 20.11.2008 declaring an additional income Rs. 18,05,000 on the basis of the aforesaid page no 65 of Annexure A-17. 2.7 The Assessing Officer framed the assessment order dated 31.12.2008, accepted the revised computation of total income as mentioned in para 2.6 above; however, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Honourable Tribunal is guided by the provisions of Explanation 5A gains strength inasmuch as the Honourable Tribunal in para 9 on page 7 of its order has observed that "..... in the case of the assessee the transactions are outside the books of account and the payments received and paid by the assessee were evidenced by the impounded documents" The insertion of Explanation 5 A effective from 1st June, 2007 is to plug the aforesaid loophole, and income on the basis of such "documents and transactions" is now deemed to be concealment. Thus, the levy of penalty on the basis of document seized, which is not "any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing" is on facts and in law, erroneous and hence, a mistake apparent on record rectiflable under section 254(2) of the Act. 3.2 (a) The Authorised Representative of the Applicant inter alia submitted during the course of hearing before the Honourable Tribunal that the Assessing Officer has specified the limb namely, concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, under which he is intending to initiate penalty proceedings, and hence, the levy of penalty ought to be deleted. (b) The Honourable Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turns" (refer para 7 on page no 6 of the Tribunal order) inasmuch as the Applicant has in response to question no 4 in the statement on oath of 15th March, 2007 has disclosed/ admitted a sum of Rs. 50 lacs in respect of "some notings not recorded in the books of accounts" and the impugned sum of Rs. 18,05,000 has voluntarily been included in the revised computation of total income, without the Assessing Officer raising any pointed query on the particular loose paper seized, being page no. 65 of Annexure A-17 during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, it is submitted that the applicant inadvertently missed out in including the sum of Rs. 18,05,000 in the return of income filed pursuant to notice under section 153A; this is an unintentional error as also informed to the Assessing Officer. The fact that this is an inadvertent/ unintentional error on the part of the accountant of the Applicant is evident from the records inasmuch as the Applicant, without there being any query raised by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings has suo moto filed a revised computation of total income before the completion of assessment proceedings. Thus, the observati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record." Thereafter after considering the various facts and decisions, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has expounded as under: In our view, the power of rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified is an obvious and patent mistake which is apparent from the record, and not a mistake which requires to be established by arguments and a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions, as has been shown in the present case. Failure by the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on the record, although it may be an error of judgment. 6. Another mistake apparent from the record submitted ld. Counsel of the assessee is that during the course of hearing, it was submitted before the ITAT that the A.O. has not specified the limb of ....