High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Dr. Hukumchand Marothi vs. CIT
Sections 254(2), 260A
Bhawani Singh, C.J. & Arun Mishra, J.
IT Appeal No. 136 of 1999
10th May, 2001
Counsel Appeared
H.S. Shrivastava, for the Appellant
JUDGMENT
ARUN MISHRA, J. :
This appeal has been filed against the order of the Tribunal rejecting an application filed by the appellant under s. 254 of the IT Act, 1961.
2. The appellant filed return of income showing income from profession at Rs. 11,276 and interest income was shown at Rs. 14,538. The Asstt. CIT assessed the income at Rs. 3,34,614. An appeal was filed before the CIT(A). The appellant submitted that HUF had agricultural land and substantial income from it besides he claimed income from profession, NSC and bank interest and that the family settlement documents in which the said agricultural land was received on partition. Before the appellate authority it has been submitted that return was submitted in which a bank certificate was filed showing FDR of Rs. 5,500 in the name of married daughter Smt. Mamta Mehta.
3. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal with respect to fixed deposit of Rs. 5,500. Revenue aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal reversed the order partly with respect to FDR of Rs. 5,500. The Tribunal arrived at a finding in the order dt. 8th Dec., 1998, to that effect that : “The assessee has claimed the FDRs belonging to his married daughter. However, he has filed no evidence to support this contention. He even did not file the confirmation from the daughter claiming the ownership of such FDR. At the time of hearing before us, the only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the assessee was that the FDR pertains to earlier years. However, in the assessment order, the AO has given the date of FDR as dt. 6th June, 1990. This date squarely falls in the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. During the course of search while recording the statement, the assessee has also surrendered a sum of Rs. 5,500 in respect of FDR in the name of his daughter. Considering the above facts and in the absence of any evidence produced by the assessee, we hold that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. We accordingly confirm the addition of Rs. 5,500 and ground No. 4 of the Revenue’s appeal is allowed.”
4. The submission raised by learned counsel before us that the case for rectification was made out with respect to FDR of Rs. 5,500.
5. Under s. 254(2) rectification application can lie only with respect to an error apparent on the face of the record. We find that various reasons were adopted by the Tribunal to make the addition of Rs. 5,500 which we have quoted above.
6. The scope of rectification proceedings is very limited and is narrower than the proceedings for review. The Tribunal has also found that the evidence was not brought to its notice, this statement has to be accepted. Even otherwise the finding which was recorded in para 13 of the order dt. 8th Dec., 1998, was based on several factors not only on the date of FDR. This matter was beyond the scope of rectification proceedings. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case of rectification which could be availed under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961.
No other submission has been raised. We find no substantial question of law in the present appeal. Same is dismissed in limine.
[Citation : 254 ITR 602]