IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 ITA.No. 301 of 2010() --------------------- ITA.304/COCH/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT: -------------------- V.R.SREEKUMAR,M/S.SNEHA FUEL LAND, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) SRI.V.SREEKUMAR SRI.TONY CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL,TRICHUR. BY SC SRI. JOSE JOSEPH. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A. No. 301 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the appeal filed against the order issued by the Tribunal in M.P. produced as Annexure E is whether the Tribunal was justified in clarifying through earlier order retaining the addition at Rs. 10 lakhs and by further stating that deletion ordered was only Rs. 5,91,650/-. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and have gone through the original order of the Tribunal and revised order issued by them in rectification proceedings based on application filed by the revenue, which is under challenge in this appeal. When assessment of the appellant was considered by the Officer for the assessment year 1999-2000, the assessing officer noticed that there was no source for Rs. 15,91,650/- which is a cash advance by the assessee for taking over a property from another person based on Power of Attorney executed by the owner of the property. The assessee produced particulars regarding funds availed from his wife and father- 2 in-law. The assessing officer accepted the source pertaining to Rs. 5,91,650/- received from his wife. Therefore he retained the addition only for the balance amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. When the appellant filed appeal before the CIT (Appeals), the CIT (Appeals), who has the power to enhance the assessment found that source explained for Rs. 5,91,650/- also is not acceptable and therefore he enhanced the assessment by increasing the addition from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 15,91,650/- against which the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal however deleted the addition made by the CIT (Appeals), obviously by retaining the original addition sustained in assessment, that is Rs. 10 lakhs. However, in the Tribunal's order there is a mistaken statement that enhancement made by the CIT to the tune of Rs. 15,91,650/- has to be reduced. Though the assessing officer by mechanically following the sentence in the Tribunal's order deleted the entire addition and reversed the order, he filed an application before the Tribunal for correcting the order. The Tribunal vide Annexure E order clarified that deletion was only Rs. 5,91,650/- and the addition originally made in assessment that is Rs. 10 lakhs shall remain 3 sustained in the Tribunal's order. Even though counsel for the appellant pointed out that Tribunal had allowed the claim in the original order, we are unable to accept the contention because what is specifically found by the Tribunal is that addition or enhancement made by the CIT (Appeals) is not sustainable. In fact they have rightly treated one sentence in their original order as a mistake in asmuch as deletion ordered which is the addition made by CIT (Appeals) was Rs. 5,91,650/-whereas the Tribunal in their original order wrongly stated the deletion as Rs. 15,91,650/-. In other words, appellant's challenge against rectified order of the Tribunal lacks merits because Tribunal has only corrected a mistake in their original order through Annexure E order. If at all appellant had any grievance he should have challenged the original order of the Tribunal that is Annexure D which was passed on 22.6.2009. Since no appeal was filed against that order, addition sustained in the original order and confirmed by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with by this Court in an appeal filed against rectified order issued by the Tribunal. In other words, the question raised, that is addition of Rs. 10 lakhs, does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. 4 Consequently appeal is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk 5