1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.91 OF 2008 M/s.Kwality Laminators ..Appellant V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ..Respondents Mumbai & anr. Mr.A.R.Singh, Advocate, for appellant Mr.A.S.Rao, Advocate, for the respondents CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 27TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. . Assessee has preferred this appeal and had formulated several questions in paragraph 17 of the Appeal Memo. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee before CIT(A) was dismissed, against which the assessee preferred an appeal before ITAT. From the order of ITAT it is clear that what was canvassed and argued before ITAT was not the merits of the case but the fact that 2 assessee was not given an opportunity of hearing. The learned Tribunal thereafter, by its Order dated 30th November, 2005 rejected the said contention and dismissed the appeal. 3. The appellant herein thereafter, moved an application before ITAT on the ground of failure by advocate to raise an important issue which was rejected against which Writ Petition No.1694 of 2007 came to be filed. The Writ Petition was dismissed with liberty to petitioner to raise the contention if any other appropriate remedy would be available. The appellant has thereafter, filed the present appeal. 4. The appellant herein in this appeal had raised two contentions. Firstly that he was denied opportunity of putting his case and secondly that after CIT(A) had come to the conclusion that at the highest the addition based on peak period would be in the sum of Rs.21, 30, 469/- could not have proceeded to make addition in the sum of Rs.74, 37, 040/- which would clearly amount to an error of law. 3 5. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, after hearing the counsel we are of the opinion that no question would arise on the facts as decided by authorities of law. However, we admit the appeal on the second question. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that even, though, the point of addition of Rs.74,37,040/- was not raised before ITAT on account of failure by his counsel to raise the point that would not preclude him from contesting that error as it is an error on the face of record. It is submitted that error if it is not corrected would lead to manifest injustice and that itself would amounts to an error of law. 7. After hearing counsel we are of the opinion that after CIT(A) on the basis of working purchases found that payments works out Rs.21,30,469/- the additions made of Rs.74,37,040/- clearly amounts to manifest error on the face of record. The Tribunal in its jurisdiction ought to have corrected the said error even, if not raised by the counsel for the appellant. Considering the facts of the case and more 4 so, for the reasons this Court had refused to entertain the Writ Petition against the order passed in Miscellaneous Application to enable the appellant to raise it in proper form which has been done by way of an appeal, we allow the appeal on that ground. 8. Considering the above, the impugned order of ITAT dated 30th November, 2005 for the assessment year 1982-83 is set aside as also the Order of CIT(A) dated 25th March, 1997. The matter is restored back to CIT(A) for de-novo considerations on the issue of additions as discussed earlier including merits thereof. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 9. The assessee to appear before the Commissioner of the appeals on 14th July, 2008 at 11.00 A.M. If the appellant fail to appear then it would be open to the Commissioner to dismiss the appeal for non-appearance. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) 5 (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)