JUDGMENT
N.K. Sud, J.
1. The assessee has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short “the Tribunal”), dated February 11, 2004, dismissing his application under Section 254(2) of the Act for rectification of its order dated May 31, 1999, passed in IT(SS) Appeal No. 23(ASR) of 1997 relating to block assessment years 1987-88 to 1997-98.
2. While making the block assessment under Section 158BC(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had made additions of Rs. 1,54,07,808 and Rs. 59,67,500 as unexplained investments on the basis of pages 192, 193 and 194 of the documents seized by the Department at the time of search on September 11, 1996.
3. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal vide order dated May 31, 1999, upheld the addition of Rs. 59,67,500 which represented the peak investment made in the liquor business. The Tribunal also got the peak amount in 21 undisclosed bank accounts calculated by counsel for the parties, which worked out to Rs. 52 lakhs. However, since the Tribunal had upheld the addition of the peak amount of Rs. 59,67,500 on account of investment in the liquor business, it held that no separate addition on account of peak amount in the bank accounts was required to be made as the same stood covered in the peak amount of Rs. 59,67,500 computed as unexplained investment in the liquor business.
4. After almost four years, the assessee filed an application dated May 20, 2003, under Section 254(2) of the Act pointing out that there was a mistake in the order of the Tribunal dated May 31, 1999. According to the assessee, while working out the peak amount in 21 bank accounts, the amount of Rs. 2,52,370 on account of bank interest had also been taken into account. It was also stated that in loose sheets at pages 192 and 193, there was an entry of Rs. 2 lakhs which was on account of interest. It was, therefore, claimed that since the peak investment in the bank accounts as well as in the loose sheets had already been added to the total income of the assessee, no separate additions on account of interest of Rs. 2,52,370 and Rs. 2 lakhs were required to be made.
5. The Tribunal vide the impugned order has rejected this application on the ground that the addition of Rs. 59,67,500 was on account of capital employed in the liquor business. No separate additions had been made on account of peak amount in the bank accounts. Thus, even if the amount of interest had been wrongly taken into account while working out the peak amount in the bank accounts, it made no difference to the income which was liable to tax. Since the amount of Rs. 59,67,500 represented only the unexplained investment in the capital employed in the liquor business, there was no error in making separate additions on account of interest which admittedly is liable to tax. Thus, the Tribunal has held that there was no mistake apparent from the record which warranted any modification/ rectification of its earlier order.
6. We have gone through the records and found that the Tribunal is right in holding that no case for rectification had been made out. It is not in dispute that the addition of Rs. 59,67,500 was on account of capital employed in the liquor business and no separate addition had been made on account of peak credit in 21 bank accounts. It is also not denied that the interest income of Rs. 2,52,370 and Rs. 2 lakhs was liable to tax. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal in assessing the interest income separately in addition to the amount of Rs. 59,67,500.
7. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine.