TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 376
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e directed to admit additional evidence filed by assessee and to decide the issue afresh to meet the ends of justice. Further after hearing the assessee's submissions and going through the written submission it was categorically accepted by Hon'ble Bench that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) will be set aside and sent back to the file of CIT(A) with directions to admit the additional evidence and decide the appeal afresh taking into consideration the additional evidence. Further, it was categorically decided by the Hon'ble Bench at the time of hearing itself that the case shall be remittance back to the file of CIT(A) on main ground of appeal accordingly no arguments on merit were made by assessee's counsel before the Hon'ble Bench. However, when the order of the Hon'ble Bench was received it was found that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the main ground of addition of Rs. 15,75000/-, instead of setting aside the case back to the file of CIT(A). In view of the above submissions, this Misc. Application is being filed with a request to recall the order of the Bench and to set aside the order of CIT(A) with directions to admit the additional evidence and to decide the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sclosed income of Rs. 50,000/- under the head 'other income'. Further the Ld. AR also relied upon a copy of registration deed no. 9120 dated 12.09.2008 in order to show that one person Sh. Jagsir Singh have been sold a property worth of Rs. 15,00,000/- and the said amount was given to the assessee for purchase of another property and the assessee deposited the same in his account with Axis Bank on 02.12.2008 and the said amount was withdrawn on 04.12.2008 for purchase of land in village Bhokra in the name of Sh. Jagsir Singh, Smt. Gurpreet Kaur and Shri Kamaljit Singh for consideration of Rs. 6,05,000/- and the balance amount was again deposited in the Bank. The remaining amount was withdrawn in the month of December, 2008 and returned to the said of Sh. Jasgir Singh because he was not interested to purchase of his property. As we realize that the Ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order, carefully perused the submissions of the Ld. AR, assessment order as well as Remand Report of the AO and came to the conclusion that during the assessment proceedings, it was contended by the appellant that the cash deposits in the bank were out of the securities advances received from 81 pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.................................................. ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ................................................................ The appeal was finally heard on 11.12.2013 and the court took a view that sanction of the State Government under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") was necessarily required, and in view thereof, the order was dictated in open court allowing the appeal on technical issue. However, the order dictated in open court and acquitting the petitioners vide order dated 11.12.2013 was recalled by the court suo moto vide order dated 27.12.2013 and directed the appeal to be re- heard. The order had been recalled on the ground that the court wanted to examine the issue further as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case where the accused had been police constables, the offence could not be attributed to have been committed under the commission of their duty where sanction under Section 197 Cr.P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not a judgment and it can be changed or altered at any time before it is signed and sealed. 8. This Court has also dealt with the issue in Surendra Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 194 observing as under: "Now up to the moment the judgment is delivered Judges have the right to change their mind. There is a sort of 'locus paenitentiae' and indeed last minute alterations often do occur. Therefore, however much a draft judgment may have been signed beforehand, it is nothing but a draft till formally delivered as the judgment of the Court. Only then does it crystallise into a full fledged judgment and become operative. It follows that the Judge who "delivers" the judgment, or causes it to be delivered by a brother Judge, must be in existence as a member of the Court at the moment of delivery so that he can, if necessary, stop delivery and say that he has changed his mind. There is no need for him to be physically present in court but he must be in existence as a member of the Court and be in a position to stop delivery and effect an alteration should there be any last minute change of mind on his part. If he hands in a draft and signs it and indicates that he ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on merit were made on the belief that the case shall be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). We have again perused the order under challenge and the material available on record. From the written submissions filed by the assessee it stands clear that the assessee has raised various arguments in support its case qua merit, which were also specifically dealt with by the Bench in its order, for the sake of convenience and ready reference reproduced herein below. "While coming to the merit of the case and specific for adjudication of ground No.2, we have realized that the assessee has failed to make out his case in any stretch of imagination because in the assessment proceedings, the assessee specifically taken the stand with regard to cash deposit of Rs. 25,20,000/-, by explaining that he wanted to get C & F of a Cement Company and appointed new and sole dealers from whom some amounts in the shape of "refundable security" was received. In support of the said contention, the assessee submitted a list of 81 persons which was duly signed by 81 persons and further stated that from each such person an amount of Rs. 19,500/- was received. It was never been brought on record by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edge about the explanation given by the counsel seems to be illogical and ignorant of law or its improper knowledge have no excuse in law. On the aforesaid observations, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has failed to offer any statutory explanation about the nature and source of Rs. 25,20,000/-. Hence, we affirm the addition of Rs. 15,86,371/-. With regard to Ground Nos. 1, 4 & 5 no specific averments/argument have been made by the Ld. AR, hence, does not require any specific adjudication as the same are formal in nature. Now coming to Ground No.3 as to confirm the disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- out of various expenses on adhoc basis as it was argued by the Ld. AR that total expenses which is claimed by the assessee was Rs. 2 Lakhs approximately which includes interest of Rs. 87,722/- and deprecation of Rs. 38,753/- which in actual frequencies, total expenses come to Rs. 78,000/- approximately and out of these expenses, Rs. 50,000/- was disallowed. We have given thoughtful consideration and gone through with the assessment order where it is not specified that how much expenses have been debited by the assessee qua Telephone, Vehicle, Stationary, Electric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. 'Mistake' means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately; to make an error in interpreting, it is an error; a fault, a misunderstanding, a misconception. 'Apparent' means visible; capable of being seen; easily seen; obvious; plain. A mistake which can be rectified under section 254(2) is one which is patent, which is obvious and whose discovery is not depend on argument or elaboration. Accordingly, the amendment of an order does not mean obliteration of the order originally passed and its substitution by a new order which is not permissible under the provisions of section 254(2). Further, where an error is far from self-evident, it ceases to be an apparent error. It is no doubt true that a mistake capable of being rectified under section 254(2) is not confined to clerical or arithmetical mistakes. On the other hand, it does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. 5.3 The Apex Court in Master Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1966] 17 STC 360, held that an error which is apparent on the face of the record should be one which is not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 254(2) of the Act does not contemplate rehearing of the appeal for a fresh disposal and doing so, would obliterate the distinction between the power to rectify mistakes and power to review the order made by the Tribunal. The scope and ambit of the application of Section 254(2) is limited and narrow. It is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. Recalling the order obviously would mean passing of a fresh order. Recalling of the order is not permissible under Sec.254(2) of the Act. Only glaring and any mistake apparent on the face of the record alone can be rectified and hence anything debatable cannot be a subject matter of rectification." 5.7 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court on the scope of rectification u/s 254(2), in the case of Ras Bihari Bansal Vs. CIT 293 ITR 365 has held as under: "Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, enables the concerned authority to rectify any "mistake apparent from the record". It is well settled that an oversight of a fact cannot constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under this section. Similarly, failure of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion, is not a....