Shashikant Suresh Patil, Nandurbar V. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Dhule

MA 07/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0632 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.07/PUN/2021 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1023/PUN/2017) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHASHIKANT SURESH PATIL, LAMBOTA, TALUKA SHAHADA, DISTRICT NANDURBAR 425409 PAN : AOAPP9015N VS. ACIT, CIRCLE, DHULE (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07-10-2020 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTE R ALSO CALLED `THE ACT) IN ITA NO.1023/PUN/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE REJECTING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.35.00 LAKH U/S.68 OF THE ACT, DID APPLICANT BY SHRI HARI KRISHAN RESPONDENT BY SHRI A.M. MAHADEVAN KRISHNAN DATE OF HEARING 19-02-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19-02-2021 M.A NO.07/PUN/2021 SHASHIKANT SURESH PATIL 2 NOT ADDUCE REASONS FOR SUCH AN AFFIRMATION. RELYING ON THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN SONY PICTURES NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ITAT (WRIT PETITION NO.3508/2018) DATED 03-01-2019 AND AMORE JEWELS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (WRIT PETITION NO.1833/2018) DATED 03-08-2018, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD RECALL THE ORDER AS IT WAS A NON-SPEAKING ORDER. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR STATED THAT THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS PROPER REASONS WERE GIVEN THEREIN. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. RELEVANT DISCUSSION ON THE ADDITION OF RS.35.00 LAKH U/S 68 OF THE AC T HAS BEEN MADE IN PARA NOS. 3 TO 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDE R. IN THE PARA 3, THE FACTUAL SCENARIO HAS BEEN ENUMERATED QUA THE ADDITION. IN THE NEXT TWO PARAS, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE RIV AL PARTIES HAVE BEEN NOTED. IN PARA 6, THE TRIBUNAL STARTED DISCUSSING THE ISSUE AND REJECTED THE ASSESSEES FIRST CONTEN TION THAT THE ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE PREVIOUS YEA R RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 UNDER CONSIDERATION, W HICH IS NOT A SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INSTANT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. THEREAFTER, IN PARA 7, THE TRIBUNAL DISCUSSED THE ISSUE ON MERITS M.A NO.07/PUN/2021 SHASHIKANT SURESH PATIL 3 BY NOTICING: ` THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER EXPLANATION FOR THE CASH CREDITS FOUND IN HIS ACCOUNTS. THOUGH THE SAID MRS. VIDYABAI NARAYAN PATIL APPEARED BEFORE THE AO, BUT ON EXAMINATION ON OATH SHE DENIED HAVING ADVANCING MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE AND NO INFORMATION ABOUT HER BANK ACCOUNTS. . . . . . . . NO DOUBT, MRS. VIDYABAI NARAYAN PATIL APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND FILED HER AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTIONS BUT HOWEVER DURING THE COURSE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION SHE STATED CONTRARY TO THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE TO GENUINENESS A ND CREDITWORTHINESS OF CREDITOR. . . . . . . . WE COMPLETELY A GREE WITH THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 6.12 OF TH E IMPUGNED ORDER . IT IS MORE THAN PERCEPTIBLE FROM THE RELEVANT PARTS OF PARA 7 REPRODUCED ABOVE THAT THE TRIBUNAL DISTINCTLY GAVE ITS REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. FURTHER IT IS A CAS E OF THE AFFIRMATION OF THE CONCURRENT VIEW OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S AND NOT THAT OF THE REVERSAL OF THAT OF THE CIT(A)S, WHIC H COULD HAVE REQUIRED SEPARATE REASONS AS TO WHY THE TRIBU NAL WAS DISAGREEING WITH HIM. IN A CASE OF AFFIRMATION, THE REA SONS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) BECOME THAT OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE M.A NO.07/PUN/2021 SHASHIKANT SURESH PATIL 4 CONFRONTED WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL SPECIFICALLY ADOPTED THE REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 6.12 OF THE LD. CIT(A) S ORDER BY MAKING A CATEGORICAL MENTION OF THE SAME. IN THE FACE OF SUCH A POSITION, WE FAIL TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ADDUCE ANY REASONS BEFORE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. IN THIS PANORAMA, THE JUDGMENTS RELIED BY THE LD. AR BECOME INAPPLICABLE. AS SUCH, THERE IS NO MISTAKE, MUCH LESS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, REQUIR ING RECTIFICATION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2021 SD/- SD/- (R.S.SYAL) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2021 M.A NO.07/PUN/2021 SHASHIKANT SURESH PATIL 5 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (APPEALS)-1, NASHIK 4. THE PR. CIT-1, NASHIK 5. , , / DR B, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 19-02-2021 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 19-02-2021 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. *