TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 1203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eous applications u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) are by the different assessees seeking rectification in the consolidated order of the Tribunal dated 31/10/2014 (arising out of ITA Nos. 3544, 3545 and 3546/Mum/2011). 2. During hearing of these miscellaneous applications, ld. counsel for the assessee, Dr. K.Shivram, along with Shri Rahul Hakani, advanced their arguments which are identical to the applications filed by the different assessee. On the other hand, Shri Girish Dave, ld. Special counsel for the Revenue, defended the conclusion arrived at in the order of the Tribunal. Since, the appeals of these assessees were disposed off by a consolidated order, being on identical issue/facts, therefore, these mis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) Documents supplied by the assessee do not show that any amount was deposited during the relevant assessment year and no addition can be made in relevant assessment year (page-14 of Misc. Application) (ii) Trust is discretionary trust, there is no taxable event in the impugned assessment year (page-15 of Misc. Application) (iii) Trust is a non resident trust, trustees are non residents and income is received outside India, hence no addition can be made (page-16 of Misc. Application) (iv) Entire addition has been made merely on the basis of presumption and assumption (page-17 of Misc. Application). C. All case laws cited and relied by assessee were not considered and discussed by the Tribunal in its or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... translated from MaxMuller Bhavan. But the fact is that nothing turns out from those parts as the information relating to the appellants was clearly readable from the documents. There is no truth in the contention that the appellants were not provided details available in the documents made available to the department under the procedure provided by the Article of exchange of information. Rather the appellants opted to hide the relevant facts which were within their knowledge. Section 106 of the Indian evidence Act, 1872 obligates the appellant that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In a situation that in certain account held in foreign bank, the names of the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d was made available. One does not know about the expression of the intention of the settler. Who was the settler? The Revenue never argued that the trust was discretionary trust. Rather, it placed evidence with regard to the types of structures which are prevalent in these jurisdictions and what are salient feature of various entities through which investments trust as discretionary trust. Further, the contention that there is no indication that the amounts were deposited in the year of account relevant for the assessment year under consideration is without any supporting evidence. If one looks at the account, there is no mention that it is a credit balance being carried forward from past. Even otherwise, such a contention cannot be taken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Trust is earlier to the date as recorded by the Tribunal, it is not going to affect the decision of the Tribunal. (e). Another issue/contention pointed out in the application is that the Bench held that the documents provided to the assessee were vouched and corroborated with the evidence on the basis of US Senate report and tax exchange treaty, such a contention is untenable as US Senate report has not been extracted by the Bench alone but the same has already been referred and discussed by the Assessing Officer in his order, though in brief. He has based his findings partly on the basis of said report. Even otherwise, if the assessee was having any grievance nothing prevented him to take this ground before the ld. Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these miscellaneous applications, in our humble opinion, the assessee is trying to get the order reviewed, which is not permissible u/s 254(2) of the Act. The expression 'mistake apparent on record' , it is well settled, means a mistake either clerical, grammatical, arithmetical or of like nature, which can be detected without there being any necessity to reargue the matter or to reappraise the facts as appearing from the record can only be rectified. Likewise, the possibility of forming of a different opinion then the one expressed in the order passed u/s 254(1) cannot be treated as ground for entertaining the application u/s 254(2) of the Act. We find that under the facts and circumstances available on record, possibly, the order was pas....