Ummed Singh Kontaya v. Ito

R.K Gupta, J.M:— These are two appeals by two different assessees against the orders of ld. CIT(A) passed under section 154 relating to assessment year 2004-2005.

2. Various grounds have been taken in these two appeals. However, the controversy involved that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the application under section 154. In fact, the appeal in case of Shri Ummed Singh Kontaya was decided on 25.09.2009 and appeal in case of Shri Uma Shankar Rajoria was decided on 29.09.2009 Thereafter ld. Counsel of the assessee moved application under section 154 in both the cases and cited various infirmities in the orders passed originally by ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions found that all the objections have already been taken into consideration by him while deciding the appeal originally and, therefore, no mistake is apparent on record in the original order passed. Accordingly the ld. CIT(A) observed that there is no mistake apparent on record which can be rectified under section 154. Therefore, rectification applications were dismissed.

3. Now both the assessees are in appeal here before the Tribunal.

4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee though written submissions are placed on record by which it has been submitted that the appeals may be decided on the basis of written submissions.

5. On the other hand, ld. D/R has stated that ld. CIT(A) has passed a speaking order originally and after taking all the objections of the assessee has dismissed the rectification application also.

6. After considering the orders of the ld. CIT(A) passed originally, copies of which are placed on record and considering the rectificatory orders under section 154, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has discussed all the materials while passing order originally. The ld. CIT(A) has noted that various opportunities were given to the assessee. However, none appeared. Thereafter taking into consideration the detailed order of the AO which has been reproduced in the order of ld. CIT(A) found that the reopening of assessment was as per provisions of law. Copy of the reasons recorded was supplied and it was found that claim of interest on borrowing amount was bogus. The ld. CIT(A) has categorically admitted that similar claim was also made in assessment year 2005-2006 which was found bogus and, therefore, the order of AO was confirmed.

7. Now assessee seeks rectification of this very order which was a speaking order.

8. After going through the order of ld. CIT(A), we find no mistake in the original order. If there is any grievance, the assessee could have filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) originally passed under section 256(6). Similar order has been passed in both the cases of the assessees and on similar facts the application under section 154 has been dismissed. As stated above, there is no mistake apparent in the original order passed, therefore, we hold that ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the application filed under section 154. Therefore, the order of ld. CIT(A) is confirmed in both the cases.

9. In the result, appeals of the assessees are dismissed.