Ramchandra Maruti Mohite, Kolhapur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

ITA 461/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Ramchandra Maruti Mohite, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A), Pune-11, concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The primary issues in the appeal were the non-allowance of set off of a business loss amounting to Rs.58,19,713 and the confirmation of an addition of Rs.3.89 crore to the assessee's income. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in sending the matter back to the AO regarding the set off of business loss, as per Section 251(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which restricts the CIT(A)'s powers to confirming, reducing, enhancing, or annulling the assessment. On the second issue, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs.3.89 crore, noting that the assessee had surrendered this amount during a search operation under Section 132 of the Act but did not report it in his tax return.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137791 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘B’ PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.461/PUN/2022 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ramchandra Maruti Mohite, 17-3, Shiv Parvati, Nagala Park, Kolhapur – 416 003 Maharashtra PAN : ABGPM8695J Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt. 09-03-2022 passed by the CIT(A), Pune-11 u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2012-13. 2. There is no appearance from the assessee despite numerous opportunities granted. As such, we are, proceeding to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee. 3. Ground No.1 is against not allowing set off of business loss amounting to Rs.58,19,713/-. Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date of hearing 22-08-2023 Date of pronouncement 23-08-2023 ITA No.461/PUN/2022 Ramchandra Maruti Mohite 2 4. After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the relevant material on record, it appears that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not grant the set off of the loss against the addition of Rs.3.89 crore. The ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the assessment record and allow the set off as per the provisions of the Act. Section 251(1) of the Act does not empower the CIT(A) to send the matter back to the AO for reconsideration. He can only confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. In the light of this statutory position, the impugned order, sending the matter back to the AO, cannot be countenanced. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the ld. CIT(A) to decide this issue himself. He is at liberty to call for any remand report from the AO in this regard, if warranted. 5. The only other ground is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.3.89 crore. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee was subjected to search operation u/s.132 of the Act on 25-08-2011. During the course of search, the assessee surrendered a sum of Rs.3.89 crore to cover up the discrepancies in the seized papers etc. However, while filing the return, the said income was not offered for taxation. The AO made the addition, which came to be sustained in the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has approached the Tribunal. ITA No.461/PUN/2022 Ramchandra Maruti Mohite 3 6. Having regard to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee himself made a surrender of Rs.3.89 crore during the course of search. In the statement recorded u/s.132(4), the assessee offered the amount in question: “To cover up the discrepancies noticed in the sized papers, i.e. on account of excess/bogus claim of work expenditure etc.” Statement u/s.132(4) has a binding force and can be treated as an evidence in the assessment proceedings. Since the assessee surrendered such an amount in his statement u/s.132(4) but did not include in the return of income, in our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the addition made on this score. We, therefore, countenance the impugned order on this score. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 23 rd August, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- ( PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 23 rd August, 2023 सतीश ITA No.461/PUN/2022 Ramchandra Maruti Mohite 4 आदेश की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. 3. थ / The respondent The Pr.CIT(Central), Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Date 1. Draft dictated on 22-08-2023 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 23-08-2023 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *