Shri. Basavaraj I Kamatagi (HUF), Hubli V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hubli

MA 108/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6854 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P V PARDEEP KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MP NOS. AND ASSESSMENT YEARS APPELLANT RESPONDENT 108/BANG/2018 (IN ITA NO.839/BANG/2016) 1998 - 99 SHRI. BASAVARAJ I. KAMATGI (HUF), C/O GANGAVATHI SILK PALACE, DAJIBAN PETH, HUBLI 580 028. PAN : AABHB 0871 P THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3[2], HUBLI. 109/BANG/2018 (IN ITA NO.840/BANG/2016) 1998 - 99 SHRI. N. R. GANGAVATHI (HUF), C/O GANGAVATHI SILK PALACE, DAJIBAN PETH, HUBLI 580 028. PAN : AAAHG 8411 P -DO- ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : DR. P. V. PARDEEP KUMAR, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 22 / 0 6 /201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 / 0 7 /201 8 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JM : THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE PREFERRED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22.12.2017 IN ITA NOS.839 AND 840/BANG/2016 WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF COORDINATE BENCH REFERRED TO DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AND HAS ALSO NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN PROPER PERSPECTIVES. THEREFORE, ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS CREPT FOR WHICH RECTIFICATION IS CALLED FOR. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT OF COORDINATE BENCH IN WHICH IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS EXAMINED AND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED. [MP NOS. 108, 109/B/2018 IN ITA NOS.839, 840/B/2016)] PAGE 2 OF 3 3. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS CONTENDED THAT TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DETAIL AND ALSO THE JUDGMENTS REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON FACTS AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE GOLD, SILVER BULLION JEWELLERY DECLARED AND SOLD. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL VIS--VIS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WE FIND THAT TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS REFERRED TO BY THE PARTIES. TRIBUNAL MINUTELY EXAMINED THE QUANTUM OF GOLD JEWELLERY, BULLION AND SILVER ARTICLES AND MADE A DETAILED DISCUSSION IN ITS ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE GOLD AND SILVER ARTICLES DECLARED UNDER VDIS SCHEME WERE SOLD AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE REJECT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JULY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (JASON P BOAZ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : BANGALORE DATED : 20/07/2018 /NS/* [MP NOS. 108, 109/B/2018 IN ITA NOS.839, 840/B/2016)] PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 5 GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE.