AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the proposed substantial questions of law. 2. The applicant, as appellant, preferred the captioned Tax Appeal against the order dated 19.03.2015 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, 'A' (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in IT (SS) A No. 678/Ahd/2010 by proposing the following questions, stated to be the substantial questions of law: "(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in deleting the addition without appreciating full facts of the case elaborately dealt with by the Assessing Officer and thereby the order of the Appellate Tribunal is perverse? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in not appreciating that the disclosure o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y virtue of client code modification. It was submitted that proposed question (A) does not relate to question (B) inasmuch as question (B) relates to disclosure of undisclosed income under section 132(4) of the Act, whereas, question (A) relates to deletion of addition including addition made on account of client code modification. It was submitted that the addition made pursuant to the disclosure was on the basis of the client code modification conducted by the assessee. It was accordingly submitted that the issue of client code modification is duly covered by proposed question (A) and hence, the order dated 02.11.2015 passed in Tax Appeal No. 607 of 2015 be recalled and the appeal be admitted on the proposed substantial question of law. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;error apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be" characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error ." (emphasis ours) 8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170, while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 369, this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and amb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, the Assessing Officer has recorded that an analysis of the data captured in the computer hard disk seized from the head office of the respondent was made by the Investigation Wing. The profit/loss was recomputed without effecting the client code modification i.e. "without code modifications". In other words, profit/loss has been worked out with reference to the "old clients" instead of "new clients". The result of such recomputation revealed that different clients of Kunvarji Commodities Broker Private Limited (the assessee) including the group company Kunvarji Finance Private Limited had diverted their profits to other persons. 7.1 The fact regarding suppression of profits of its various clients along with relevant details came to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hough the retraction was an afterthought?" 8.1 This Court, in its order dated 06.10.2015 rendered in the above appeal, has in the context of proposed question (A), held thus: "7. Thus, while it is true that on behalf of the assessee Mr. Nayan Thakkar had admitted unaccounted income of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- which was subsequently reiterated by a letter dated 10.04.2008. However, the facts reveal that the statement had been recorded under circumstances which clearly disclose that the admission could not have been recorded voluntarily. The subsequent letter and the retraction which has been made much later have to be seen in the backdrop of the facts of the case, which clearly show that the relevant documents which were seized by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rent that the Assessing Officer had made addition in the hands of the assessee on the basis of disclosure made by Shri Nayan Thakkar by bifurcating the amount of Rs. 12 crore into three parts, Rs. 8 crore in the hands of Kunvarji Finance Private Limited, Rs. 2 crore in the hands of Shri Nayan Thakkar and Rs. 2 crore in the hands of the assessee as amount received for providing client code modification. 10. While it is true that the Assessing Officer has held that Rs. 2 crore was received by the assessee for providing the client code modification and he has attributed this amount year-wise in the ratio of client code modifications, such addition is not based on any material other than the disclosure made by Shri Nayan Thakkar. The Assessi....