DCIT, MATHURA V. OM PRAKASH SINGH, AGRA

MA 21/AGR/2019

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the assessment and subsequent penalty imposed on Sh. Om Prakash Singh by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mathura. Initially, the assessment for the year 2011-12 was completed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, with significant additions to the income declared. The CIT(A) later modified the net profit rate applied, and the ITAT further reduced it while deleting the unexplained cash credit addition. The Revenue's application for rectification was based on alleged non-consideration of certain facts and legal precedents by the ITAT in their earlier ruling. However, the ITAT found that the Revenue did not substantiate their claims of oversight or mistake in the application of law in their previous decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 47027 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: Ajay kr. Vs. ITO-2(1). Agra, CIT Vs. M/s Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory, M/s Grass Field Farms & Resorts (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT, State Bank of Patiala & Ors. Vs. S.K. Sharma
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAILENDER SHRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 144; 271(1)(c); 68; 73

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH DB BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.- 21/Agr/2019 Arising Out of ITA No:- 750/Agr/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Mathura. Vs. Sh. Om Prakash Singh, E-24, Kamla Nagar, Agra. PAN No:ADMPS3229F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement :28.03.2025 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The impugned miscellaneous application of the Revenue seeks rectification in the order passed by the ITAT in ITA no. 750/ Agra/ 2018 dated. 22. 03.2019. 2. The contents of the application read as under: MA No.- 21/Agr/2019 Sh. Om Prakash Singh. 2 | P a g e “Hon'ble Tribunal passed an order No. 750/Agra/2018 dated 23.03.2019 for A.Y. 2011-12. On the basis of assessment completed u/s 144 on at an income of Rs. 4,72,20,860/- by applying N.P rate @ 12% of total receipt of Rs. 1,42,88,131/- and Rs. 3,00,00,000/- has been added u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealed the particular of income by the assessee. Further, Ld. CIT(A)-1, Agra restricted the N.P. rate to 8% of total turnover and Hon'ble ITAT partly allowed the appeal restricting the N.P. rate to 3.5% of the total turnover and deleted the unexplained cash credit of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. Consequent upon the above order of the CIT(A)-1, Agra, the AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing his income. During the stage of Ist appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty relying upon the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Agra Bench enunciated in the case of Ajay kr. Vs. ITO-2(1). Agra which in turn is based on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory 3591TR565. Having not been relied upon the order of CIT(A)-1, Agra, the department preferred an IInd appeal before Hon'ble ITAT. Agra Bench, Agra. Who vide order decided the appeal in favour of the assessee without considering the facts produced by the Ld. CIT(DR), Agra. It has been alleged by the Ld. CIT(DR) that Hon'ble ITAT have notproperly dealt with arguments made by the CIT(DR) during the course of hearing and violated the principle of doctrine of estoppel. This is being a mistake apparent from record needs to be rectified. Apart from this, the Hon'ble ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra has also not considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala & Ors. Vs. S.K. Sharma, 1996 AIR 1669 and M/s Grass Field Farms & Resorts (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT which was produced by Hon'ble DR. These mistakes in the order are in the nature of mistakes apparent from record. In view of the above facts, the impugned order of the Hon'ble ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra can't be acted upon & therefore, the suitable order may kindly be passed for rectifying the earlier order passed in the case of the said assessee.” MA No.- 21/Agr/2019 Sh. Om Prakash Singh. 3 | P a g e 3. As is evident from a bare perusal of the application it does not point out any mistake as such in the order of the ITAT. It only contains a general statement that the order has been passed in favour of the assessee without considering the facts produced by the Ld. CIT(DR), Agra. Nothing has been specified of the facts not considered by theITAT, nor could the Ld. DR point out any during the course of hearing before us. Therefore, this contention of the Revenue for there being a mistake in the order passed by the ITAT, we hold, merits no consideration 4. The application also mentions that the ITAT has not considered the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and others Vs S K Sharma, 1996 AIR 1669 and M/s Grass Field Farms & Resorts (P) Ltd. vs DCIT, which were produced by the DR. 5. We have gone through the case records before us and we find that it does contain the order of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and others (supra), while there is no order of M/s Grass Field Farms & Resorts (P) Ltd (supra) on record before us, neither do we find the application to mention the citation of this MA No.- 21/Agr/2019 Sh. Om Prakash Singh. 4 | P a g e decision. Ld. DR was also unable to demonstrate the reference made by the Ld. DR to this decision during the course of hearing in the matter. 6. There is no basis or reason for us therefore to believe that the other decision in the case of M/s Grass Field Farms & Resorts (P) Ltd (supra) was cited by the Ld. DR during the course of hearing in the appeal. 7. As for the non-consideration of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and others (supra), we have gone through the order of the ITAT and we find that while dealing with the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing/ furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the case of the assessee, the ITAT deleted the penalty following the order of the honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory 395 ITR 565(Kar) and the CIT vs SSA Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxman.com 241 (Kar),the SLP against which were noted to be dismissed by the Hon’ble apex court. The proposition relied upon for deleting the penalty was that in the absence of clarity with the AO of the specific charge for which MA No.- 21/Agr/2019 Sh. Om Prakash Singh. 5 | P a g e penalty was levied ,with the initiation of penalty proceedings, the notice issued for initiating penalty proceedings and the penalty order all mentioning different charges of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income & concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income respectively, the order passed was not sustainable. 8. Before us Ld. DR was unable to point out as to what proposition of law was propounded in the case of State Bank of Patiala(supra) which, on not being considered by the ITAT,had adversely effected the outcome in the appeal. 9. We have gone through the said decision and we find that it is in the context and in relation to a disciplinary inquiry against an employee of State Bank of Patiala raising certain questions concerning natural justice in the context of disciplinary proceedings. It lays down that there is a distinction between violation of the principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem,as such and violation of a facet of the said principle. MA No.- 21/Agr/2019 Sh. Om Prakash Singh. 6 | P a g e 10. Ld.DR has been unable to point out any reliance on the said principle of natural justice by the ITAT while deciding the appeal nor, as stated above has he been able to demonstrate how the said decision is applicable to the facts of the case, non-consideration of which by the ITAT was a mistake therefore. 11. On the contrary the decision relied upon by the ITAT is direct on the issue in appeal before it. 12. The Ld. DR clearly has been unable to point out any mistake in the order of the ITAT in not having considered the decision cited by the Ld.DR in the case of State Bank of Patiala(supra). 13. In view of the same we do not find any merit in the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue and the same is therefore dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.03.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN MEMBER Dated: 07.04.2025 Pooja/- MA No.- 21/Agr/2019 Sh. Om Prakash Singh. 7 | P a g e Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT , AGRA "