ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) THE assessee has preferred this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), against the order of the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the pleadings for want of evidence which is in disregard to the order of a Co -ordinate Bench ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal's order is sustainable being de hors to the material on record and the proceedings ? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in giving conclusions being in apposite to the accepted modus operandi as per the Departmental records -
(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the assessee has filed the amended substantial questions of law which read as under : "(i) Whether, on the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of s. 254(2) the same can be construed to be the continuation of the proceedings in appeal as per s. 254(1) ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal's order is sustainable rejecting the pleadings under s. 254(2) for want of evidence though indisputably a matter of record during the appellate proceedings ? (iii) Whether the Tribunal's order is sustainable being in apposite to the accepted trade practice and material on record -
(3.) DURING the assessment, the AO found from the balance sheet that there was entry of trade creditors. The assessee was required to give intimation with regard to the said entry with a view to ascertain the identity of the creditors and genuineness of the entry. Finally, the AO did not accept the genuineness of the entry and made additions to the extent of trade credits. The said view was reversed by the CIT(A), but the Tribunal restored the order of the AO, vide order dt. application for rectification was in the nature of review, which was not permissible. Learned counsel for the assessee relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 425 : (2007) 165 Taxman 307 (SC), wherein it was observed that no one should suffer for the mistake of the Tribunal. In that case, the Tribunal by oversight missed out a judgment which was directly on the point.;