PUNEET MAHAJAN, MUMBAI V. ITO 23(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2132/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3527 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC , BENCH MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI R. K. GUPTA , JM ITA NO. 2 132 / MUM/ 20 1 3 ( ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 200 7 - 20 0 8 ) SMT. PUNEET MAHAJAN, MAHAJAN MILLS COMPOUND, LBS MARG, VIKHROLI (WEST) , MUMBAI - 4010 079 VS. ITO WD 23 ( 1 )( 1 ), MUMBAI PAN/GIR NO. : A A D PM 5146 N ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SURINDER MEHRA /REVENUE BY : SHRI ARUN KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 2 3 RD MAY , 201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 TH JUNE , 2013 O R D E R TH IS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15 - 12 - 2011 OF CIT(A) - 36 , MUMBAI RELA TING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 200 8 . HEARD ON APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY . 2 . THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY 379 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D AN AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, WHICH IS ON RECORD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND OBJECTION OF THE LEARNED DR, I FOUND THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CASE AND BONAFIDE INTENTION IN FILING THE APPEAL LATE. ACCORDINGLY, I CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. ALSO HEARD ON MERIT OF THE APPEAL 3 . THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL IS OBJECTING IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,500/ - MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 68. ITA NO. 2 132 /20 1 3 2 4 . THERE WAS A DIFFERENC E IN ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEES WIFE AND ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 . THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WAS FILED BEFORE THE CI T(A) AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT DUE TO ACCOUNTANTS MISTAKE, WRONG ENTRIES WERE PASSED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE SMT. SANGEETA MAHAJAN . IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF PROFIT IN PASSING THE WRONG ENTRIES. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED AS IN HIS VIEW THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFACTORY. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ENTIRELY PUT ON THE ACCOUNTANT AND BY OBSERVING THAT THE AO HAS PASSED A DETAILED ORDER IN THIS RESPECT. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 6 . A GGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION, I FOUND THAT THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) , WHICH IS RE PRODUCED AT PAGE 5 OF HIS ORDER. NO MISTAKE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN RECONCILIATION STATEMENT. IF ANY MISTAKE WAS OCCURRED BY THE ACCOUNTANT AND LATER ON THE SAME WAS RECTIFIED BY FILING RECONCILIATION, THEN IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED . E VEN AND OTHERWISE, THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF PROFIT IN PASSING THE WRONG ENTRIES OR INCORRECT ENTRIES. THEREFORE, FOR THIS REASON ALSO, THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION ITA NO. 2 132 /20 1 3 3 68 WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED . IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES, I DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF JUNE .2013 201 3 SD/ - ( ) ( R.K.GUPTA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 12/06 /2013 /PKM , PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / THE CIT(A) , MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT, MUMBAI