M/S. SHIV SHAKTI ENTERPRISE,VADODARA V. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

MA 68/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Shiv Shakti Enterprise, who filed a Miscellaneous Application against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning an assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention in the application was the Tribunal's failure to confront the assessee with two judgments cited in the original order and the omission to follow a relevant decision from the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Deccan Jewellers. The Tribunal acknowledged these oversights and decided to recall the previous order, scheduling a fresh hearing to ensure justice and proper legal procedure.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473877 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Deccan Jewellers, Nilaykumar & Bros vs. PCIT
• Laws Referred To: Section 115BBE of the Act, Section 69A of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEEJU GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S.N. SOPARKAR
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A No.68/Ahd/2023 in I.T.A. No.119/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/s. Shiv Shakti Enterprise, Shop No.3, Nisarg Avenue, Vadsar, Vadodara-390010. Vs. The PCIT-1, Vadodara. [PAN No.ACQFS1952H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate and Shri Parin Shah, AR Respondent by: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. D.R Date of Hearing 18.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 14.02.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee has filed present Miscellaneous Application against the order in ITA No. 119/Ahd/2022 dated 07.07.2023. In the Miscellaneous Application, the assessee has raised few points which are summarized in the succeeding paragraphs. 2. Firstly, in the present Miscellaneous Application the assessee has submitted that while passing the order in ITA No. 119/Ahd/2022, the Tribunal had cited two judgments, which were not confronted to the assessee. Secondly, it has been stated in the Miscellaneous Application that while passing the order, the Tribunal erred in not following the decision of M.A No.68/Ahd/2023 In ITA No.119/Ahd/2022 Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– Ahdhra Pradesh High Court in the case PCIT vs. Deccan Jewellers 132 taxmann.com 73, without giving any reason as to why such judgment was not followed while passing the order. 3. On going through the contents of the order dated 07.01.2023, the Tribunal observed that during the course of survey, the assessee firm admitted to an undisclosed income of Rs. 1,01,00,000/- and the issue for consideration was whether such admitted undisclosed income attracted a higher tax @ 60% under Section 115BBE of the Act. While passing the order, the Tribunal held that in view of the bare language of Section 69A of the Act, in case the assessee “is found to be the owner of any money, jewellery or valuable article…” then the assessee falls within the purview of Section 69A of the Act and a higher tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE of the Act would stand attracted. While passing the order the Tribunal gave a specific finding that the case of Nilaykumar & Bros was not applicable since it has been rendered with respect to a separate issue and on a different set of facts. While passing the order, at Page No. 5, the Tribunal had specifically pointed out that the decision of Nilaykumar & Bros was not applicable to the assessee’s set of facts since it was a case of excess stock discovered during survey and therefore, the submission of the assessee in the present Miscellaneous Application that the Tribunal has not followed the decision of Nilaykumar & Bros vs. PCIT supra without giving any reason, is factually incorrect. 4. Further, in the present Miscellaneous Application, the assessee submitted that in the order passed by Tribunal, the applicant had referred to two judgments, which were confronted to the assessee. The above M.A No.68/Ahd/2023 In ITA No.119/Ahd/2022 Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– argument of the assessee is found to be acceptable. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the present order is directed to be recalled and put up for fresh hearing. The appeal may be fixed for fresh hearing in due course. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 14.02.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 14.02.2025 Tanmay, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 11.02.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 11.02.2025 3. Other Member… .02.2025 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 11.02.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 14.02.2025 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 14.02.2025 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 14.02.2025 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order…………………………………… "