COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PEARL WOOLLEN MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal was right in law in entertaining a second application under s. 254(2) of the Act raising the same and similar points which had been dealt with by it in the first application filed by the assessee under s. 254(2) of the Act after affording full hearing to the parties ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in recalling its previous the order of the AAC granting relief to the assessee to the tune of Rs. 8,34,730 against the aforesaid addition -

(2.) THE assessee derived income from manufacture and sale of woollen yarn and scooter and declared loss for the year in question but the AO added unaccounted stock pledged with the bank and not accounted for in the books of account, as restored the addition. were of argumentative nature.

(3.) AFTER 9 months, second application under s. 254(2) was made which was almost similar to the application earlier reversing the view earlier taken by the Tribunal, addition made by the AAC was upheld (sic). The Tribunal, inter alia, observed as under : "8. Once it is held that a mistake has crept in the Tribunal's order by virtue of its omission to deal with ground Nos. 7 and 8, as mentioned above, the question would be as to how such mistake should be corrected. We have no hesitation in saying that we shall be shirking our responsibility and duty if we are to reject the assessee's present petition simply on the ground that since the assessee was rejected earlier on its petitions under s. 254(2) of the Act, a fresh petition cannot lie. 9. This is a peculiar case in as much as the assessee has suffered because of omission of the Tribunal and on the facts of the case there are two courses open to us either to recall the Tribunal's order on the point of restoration of addition of Rs. 9,36,302 or to adjudicate the dispute afresh. We like to adopt the second course because it has already taken a long time and it is nobody case that any fresh evidence is required to decide the assessee's petition."