Panna Lal Kumawat, Jaipur V. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur, Jaipur

MA 10/JPR/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2894 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: THIS MA MERELY TRYING MORE RELIEF BY MERELY FILLING THIS MA; DID NOT
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Capital receipt
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh laanhi xkslkbZ]U;kf;d lnL; ,oaJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Misc. Application No. 10/JP/2022 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.84/JP/2021) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Panna Lal Kumawat 602, DCM, Ajmer Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-1 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AJDPK 4526 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl.CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 19/07/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 07 /09/2022 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This is a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee seeking rectification of the order passed in ITA No. 84/JP/2021 dated 05-05-2022. In the Miscellaneous Application, the assessee has prayed that mistake has crept in the order dated 05-05-2022 for which the ld. AR has given its submission as under:- ‘’4. The Hon'ble ITAT at Para 14. Pg 32 to 33 of its order summarised the arguments raised before it as under: 2 MA NO.10/JP/2022 PANNALAL KUMAWAT VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR Particulars Amount (Rs.) The figure of addition as per findings of ld. CIT(A) [figure should have been based on the figure see table B] 88,78,442 Repeated entries and same is considered in the outstanding figure of Rs,.43,76l,901/- as amount given so required to be deducted (4,49,080) Since the amount given/taken or taken or given considered in the amount of outstanding amount as income earned from that transaction, assessee explanation is considered and required to be deducted (12,93,511) Amount outstanding as per Exhibit 5(Dene Hai- amount taken) (14,48,150) Amount outstanding as per Exhibit 5 (Dene Hai-Amount Taken) (13,10,800) Being the amount outstanding as per Exhibit 3 & 5 outstanding as Lene Hai (This amount is the total amount of lene hai which consist of outstanding of dene hai and income earned out of repeat or cross transaction, therefore, same should be considered as explained money an shall meet with the end of justice) 43,76,901 After this table it is held that addition of Rs.43,76,901/- being the balance outstanding as per the seized records should be considering as income of the assessee as outstanding entries emerging from seized diary as unrecorded transactions and are required to be taxed which will meet with the end of the justice in respect of these seized diaries, as this amount is earned and available with the assessee as out of this lene hai and dene hai activities. It is also stated that either the loan given or loan taken balance as on the date of search can be taxed since in this case the loan given balance and outstanding is Rs.43,76,901/- is required to be taxed in the hands of the assessee and will take care of the earning that has been made out of books by the assessee. 5. In giving the above finding, following mistakes apparent on record has crept in: (i) At Para 14 the outstanding as per Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 3 of Rs.27,58,950/- (14,48,150+13,10..800) which represent advance received by assessee has been reduced from the addition confirmed by CIT(A) and the amount of Rs.43,76,901/- being outstanding amount given (lene hai) has been considered as taxable ignoring that amount of Rs.27,58,950/- received by assessee is source of advance of Rs.43,76,901/- given by assessee and thus only difference of Rs. 16,17,951/- could have been added. 3 MA NO.10/JP/2022 PANNALAL KUMAWAT VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR (ii) The details of advance of Rs.27,58,950/- received by assessee as per Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 3 is at Pg 18 & 19 of the order which proves that it is the amount received by assessee which is to be repaid and thus it is not income as mistakenly observed by Hon'ble ITAT. Thus, this amount is source for amount given at Rs.43,76,901/- and therefore is ought to be set off leaving a balance of Rs. 16,17,951/- only. (iii) Hon'ble ITAT at Para 13 observed that it is fair on part of the argument of AR of the assesseethat both the money given and money taken as advance cannot be taxed as the source ofmoney advanced clearly proves to be out of the money taken as advance but at Para 14 it isheld that either the loan given or loan taken balance as on the date of search can be taxed andthus higher of two, i.e. Rs.43.76,901/- is taxed. Thus both the observations are contradictory.The loan taken is not an income but capital receipt which is source of loan given and therefore, by not allowing set off of loan taken against loan given has resulted in double addition. (iv) The AO made the addition u/s 68. The assessee specifically raised Ground No.1.2 against the addition made u/s 68. However, this ground is not decided. 6. In view of above, it is obvious that a mistake apparent on record has crept in and therefore it is humbly prayed to suitably modify the order u/s 254 of the IT Act by correcting these mistakes and oblige.’’ 2. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the order of the ITAT,Jaipur Bench and submitted that there is no error in the order of ITAT except the assessee is making tactics of getting more relief and making efforts to get reviewed the order of the ITAT through the Misc. Application. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench has also considered the points raised by the assessee through Misc. Application meticulously. The ld. AR is trying to get the order reviewed and get more benefit. The ld. AR did not demonstrate as to what is the mistake 4 MA NO.10/JP/2022 PANNALAL KUMAWAT VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR apparent in the order of the bench. Thus, the Bench does not find that the issues raised in the MA hardly any chance of any rectification in the Tribunal Order as it has been held by the Bench that the assessee is indulged into unaccounted transactions recorded in the diary during the course of search and considering the merits of the case and submission of the assessee given the relief and assessee by this MA merely trying more relief by merely filling this MA and did not demonstrate the error as such in the order passed by the bench . The Bench has considered the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee and has taxed only portion of the unaccounted income whether it is in debit side or in the credit side which the ld. AR of the assessee is contending that the same can be taken as balance in the credit side as it is less in figure but the ld. AR failed to demonstrate as to how the debit balance considered by the Bench as unaccounted income of the assessee accumulated over a period of time is not chargeable to tax. It is also pertinent to mention that ld. AR could not differentiate as to why the amount of Rs.43,76,901/- should not be taken instead of Rs. 16,17,951/-. Even the contention raised by the ld. AR that Ground No. 1.2 is not decided by the Bench, we have seen that vide para 12 the Bench has already decided the Ground No. 1.2 raised by the assessee. Thus, not only on facts but also on any of the legal grounds the order contains any mistake apparent from the records. Hence, the order passed by the Bench does not 5 MA NO.10/JP/2022 PANNALAL KUMAWAT VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR suffer any infirmity which is reasoned and well speaking order. In view of the above deliberation, the Misc. Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. 4.0 In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open Court on 07-09-2022 Sd/- Sd/- ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Sandeep Gosain) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 07/09/2022 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Pannal Lal Kumawat, Jaipur Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (MA No. 10/JP/2021) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar