Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Hukumchand Marothi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: [2002]254ITR602(MP)
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting an application filed by the appellant under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. The appellant filed a return of income showing income from profession at Rs. 11,276 and interest income was shown at Rs. 14,538. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax assessed the income at Rs. 3,34,614. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appellant submitted that the Hindu undivided family had agricultural land and substantial income from it besides he claimed income from profession, N. S. C. 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 the return was submitted in which a bank certificate was filed showing F. D. R. of Rs. 5,500 in the name of his married daughter, Smt. Mamta Mehta.
3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal with respect to the fixed deposit of Rs. 5,500. The Revenue aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal reversed the order partly with respect to the F. D. R. of;, Rs. 5,500. The Tribunal arrived at a finding in the order dated December 8, 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 learned counsel for the assessee was that the FDR pertains to earlier years. However, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has given the date of the FDR as June 6, 1990. This date squarely falls in the previous year relevant to the 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 the 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 Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 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 is that a case for rectification was made out with respect to the FDR of Rs. 5,500.
5. Under section 254(2) a 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 Income-tax Appellate 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 dated December 8, 1998, was based on several factors not only on the date of the FDR. This matter was beyond the scope of rectification proceedings.
7. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case of rectification which could be availed of under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
8. No other submission has been raised. We find no substantial question of law in the present appeal. The same is dismissed in limine.