TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 2100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 02.07.2024 in ITA No. 3431/Del/2023 for assessment year 2015-16. 2. Learned Authorized Representative for the applicant/assessee submitted that order dated 02.07.2024 for mistakes of facts and law apparent on record requires rectification. Para 10 of order mentions "Learned authorized representative for appellant/assessee submitted that impugned orders are bad in law as having been based on mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act without due application of mind". Para 11 of order states "Learned authorized representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Learned AO erred in law and on facts in charging tax under section 115BBE of the Act whereas the additional tax liability was applicable w.e.f. assessment year 2017-18. As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mistake apparent from record, especially, considering the order of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in Brandix Mauritius and considering trite law that judicial forum must first consider at its own, matters which goes to the root/ validity of the matter as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini vs High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307. 5. Learned authorised representative for the applicant/assessee when the claim regarding diary by Mr. Rohit Sharma was rejected on the ground of absence of specific details and supporting documents, then accepting the very same contents against the appellant, non-author, in absence of specific details and supporting documents is self-contradiction and is a mistake a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the diary whose name as the owner/author of the same is specifically mentioned in the diary copied by the Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order, and filing his affidavit with a detailed explanation on the contents of the diary and the sources/nature/ purpose of the expenditure mentioned therein which categorically nowhere identifies or points to the assessee. Thus, this fact also escaped the attention of the Hon'ble Tribunal. The assessee also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional Delhi High Court submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) in written submissions, particularly page no. 27 para 1.18, 1.19 etc. of the Ld. CIT(A) order, which have also escaped attention of the Hon'ble Tribunal while holding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut also the order dated 13th February, 2018 to the extent it dismissed the petitioner's Appeal before it. This for the reason that, we find the order dated 13th February, 2015 in the context of material available on record to be a nonspeaking order as it gives no reasons to reject the appeal in the context of the decisions admittedly relied upon at the hearing by the petitioners." 7. We notice both the above cited decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court support the plea of the assessees made in the miscellaneous petitions. Since the Co-ordinate Bench did not consider the detailed written submissions furnished by it along with the evidences in support of the impugned additions made in their hands by the AO, it has led ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....f. assessment year 2017-18 was not attracted. The above-said arguments inadvertently escaped adjudication. Ground of appeal no. 3 regarding aggregate amount of Rs. 42,98,086/- is being aggregated duplicate/triplicate entries has not been adjudicated. The addition is based on entries in diaries by Rohit Sharma was rejected on the ground of absence of specific details and supporting documents and then accepting the same that contents against appellant. In absence of specific diaries which were contradictory. Accepting of contents of a third-party diary without independent corroboration was against law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Case [2017] 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) and CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410 and thus ....