- (1.) THE appeal has been admitted in terms of the following questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that an oversight of the fact cannot constitute a mistake apparent from record under Section 254(2) of the Act ?' '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly refused to allow benefit of telescoping to the appellant while passing the impugned order dt. 16th Oct., 2000 passed under Section 254(2) of the Act, irrespective of the fact that mistake of law may be rectified at any stage of the proceedings ?'
(2.) IN the appeal, order of the Tribunal, dt. 7th April, 2000, in para 23, the Tribunal has decided the last issue regarding telescoping, holding that since we have not sustained the additions in respect of assets expenditure, this ground requires no discussion. The case of the assessee in miscellaneous application was that as Tribunal has committed mistake which is apparent mistake, by not deciding the issue regarding telescoping in para 23 of its order. The Tribunal has dismissed the miscellaneous application, holding as there was no apparent mistake in the order, therefore, the miscellaneous application preferred by the assessee is dismissed.
(3.) MR . Kasliwal, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that he has raised the issue regarding addition in telescoping, but that has not been considered and discussed, therefore, there is apparent mistake in the order and the miscellaneous application has wrongly been rejected.;