CHINUBHAI KHETSIBHAI PATEL,MORBI V. ITO, WARD-1, MORBI, MORBI

MA 1/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Chinubhai Khetsibhai Patel, the appellant, who filed a miscellaneous application against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Morbi, the respondent, concerning the assessment year 2014-15. The appellant sought rectification of the Tribunal's earlier order, which had inadvertently omitted crucial findings related to the valuation of cows and calves. The Tribunal had previously allowed the appeal but failed to include specific details regarding the addition sustained by the CIT(A). Both parties agreed that this was a mistake apparent from the record, leading to the Tribunal's decision to amend the order to include the omitted findings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 313933 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Sreelekha Bannerjee (491 ITR 122)
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL RANPURA; LD
• Keywords: Valuation report

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, राजकोट Ûयायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER िविवध आवेदन सं./MA No.1/RJT/2025 (a/o ITA No.72/RJT/2019) Ǔनधा[रणवष[ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Chinubhai Khetsibhai Patel, Parshram Baug & Nursery, Opp. APMC, Dhangadhara Rod, b/h Railway Crossing, Halvad, Dist. Surendranagar-363 330 बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Morbi Öथायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. PAN/GIR No.ALFPP 6558 C (अपीलाथȸ/Appellant) .. (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.AR राजèव कȧ ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld.Sr.DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख /Date of Hearing : 14/02/2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 07/05/2025 ORDER PER Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee has sought to point out that a mistake apparent from record, has crept in the order of the Tribunal dated 25.09.2024, in assessee’s case, in ITA Nos.70 to 72/RJT/2019. 2. Learned Counsel for the assessee, pointed out that Tribunal has allowed appeal of the assessee, however, the relevant findings in respect of addition sustained by ld.CIT(A) to the tune of Rs. 42,87,244/-, has not been given in the MA No.01 /RJT/2025 a/o ITA No.72/Rjt/2019) Chinubhai K Patel 2 order, which relates to valuation of cow and calves, therefore, it is a mistake apparent from record, which requires rectification. 3. On the other hand, Learned DR for the Revenue, did not raise any objection and stated that this is a mistake apparent on record, which may be rectified by the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. On verification of page-20 of Tribunal’s order, vide para No.26 of the Tribunal`s order, it is observed by us, that finding of addition retained by Ld.CIT(A) of Rs.42,87,244/-, out of addition made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.44,57,244/-, related to valuation of cows and calves, were remained to be given in the order. Therefore, we proceed to rectify the mistake apparent from record as follows. 5. The finding of the Tribunal below para 28 of the Tribunal order, should be read as follows: “. We have heard both the parties. We note that Ld. DR for the revenue, relied on the stand taken by the assessing officer. We find that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted the valuation report of the cows at Rs.57,87,244/-. However, the assessing officer made the valuation of these cows and calves, based on the estimation and stated that valuation made by the assessee is on higher side. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that the animals (i.e. cows) have already been shown as current assets in the financial statements. It was submitted by the assessee to the Assessing Officer that income by way of milk sale has already been shown as income in the financial statement. The assessee submitted to the Assessing Officer that expenses relating Tabela shed and cattle feed expenses and medicine expenses have already been shown under the head expenses. The cows were stated to had been valued at cost price that is, the price at which they were purchased and when the cows were sold then the sale was reduced from the carrying value. The assessee in support of his statement MA No.01 /RJT/2025 a/o ITA No.72/Rjt/2019) Chinubhai K Patel 3 submitted a certificate of veterinary officer stating that there were about 133 cows including heifers which were in good and healthy conditions and which satisfies milk income shown in financial statement. We note that assessing officer did not find any mistake and irregularities in these above documents and evidences except to say that these documents are not acceptable. Therefore, we find that when the assessee has all the possible documents to prove his claim, and they should not be rejected mere surmises and conjecture. The whole exercise is to be based on facts and it is the duty of the assessing officer to marshal all the facts and come to a logical conclusion about the income of the assessee for the year under consideration, for this reliance is placed on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sreelekha Bannerjee (491 ITR 122), wherein it was held that “ ..... before the department rejects such evidence, it must either show an inherent weakness in the explanation or rebut it by putting to the assessee some information or evidence, which it has in possession ...” Considering these facts and circumstances, we delete the addition made by the assessing officer and allow the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.” 6. The order of the Tribunal dated 25.09.2024, in ITA No.70 to 72/RJT/2019, be treated as amended to this extent, as mentioned above. 7. In the result, the miscellaneous application of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 07/05/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (DR.ARJUNLAL SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट /Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 07/05/2025 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S MA No.01 /RJT/2025 a/o ITA No.72/Rjt/2019) Chinubhai K Patel 4 आदेश कì ÿितिलिप अúेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथê/ The Appellant  ÿÂयथê/ The Respondent  आयकर आयुĉ/ CIT  आयकर आयुĉ(अपील)/ The CIT(A)  िवभागीय ÿितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  गाडªफाईल/ Guard File // True Copy // By order/आदेश से , Tue copy/ // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Date 1. Draft dictated on 06.05.2025 2. Draft placed before author 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order. 11. Draft dictation sheets are attached "