Omprakash Gupta, Bhopal V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) II, Bhopal

MA 11/Ind/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Om Prakash Gupta, who filed Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) seeking rectification of mistakes in the Tribunal's composite order dated 28.01.2022 concerning the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Tribunal initially disposed of the appeals without specifically adjudicating on some grounds for A.Y.2014-15. The Departmental Representative acknowledged the confusion and ambiguity in the findings. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to recall the order for A.Y.2014-15 for a fresh hearing, while dismissing the application for A.Y.2013-14 as no mistake was found.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127210 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Additional evidence
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इंदौर यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA Nos.10 & 11/Ind/2022 (Arising out of IT(SS)A No.282/Ind/2017 & I.T.A. No.692/Ind/2017) Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri Om Prakash Gupta Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. ACIT (Central)-II Bhopal PAN No. : AELPG 3485 J (Appellant) .. Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.S. Deshpande, AR Revenue by : Shri Ashish Porwal Sr. D.R Date of Hearing 04.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 04.08.2023 ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: By way of these Misc. Applications the assesse is seeking rectification of mistake in the composite order of the Tribunal dated 28.01.2022 whereby the appeals of the assesse for A.Ys.2013-14 and 2014-15 as well as two appeals of the wife of the assessee, Rajbala Gupta for A.Y.2013-14 were disposed off. 2. Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that for A.Y.2014-15 the assesse filed the revised grounds of appeal however, the Tribunal has MA No.10 & 11/Ind/2022 Shri Om Prakash Gupta 2 - not specifically adjudicated the grounds of appeal of the assesse while passing the impugned order. He has further submitted that the finding of the Tribunal in para no.13 to 17 at page no.6 & 7 of the impunged order is not related to the assessment order 2014-15 in ITANo.692/Ind/2017 and therefore, there is a mistake apparent on record which required to be rectified. Ld. AR further submitted that for A.Y.2013-14 there is no mistake in the order of this tribunal however, the finding of the Tribunal for A.Y.2013-14 in para no.6 of the impugned order also includes some issue of the assesse’s appeal for A.Y.2014-15. Hence the ld. AR did not press the Misc. Application No.10/Ind/2022 for A.Y.2013-14. 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR has fairly submitted that there is a confusion and ambiguity in the finding given by the Tribunal in para no.13 to 17 at page no.6 & 7 of the impugned order. 4. Having considered the rival submission and carefully perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal, we find that so far as the order of the Tribunal for A.Y.2013-14 in ITANo.282/Ind/2017 is concerned the assesse has accepted that there is no mistake in the said order except some of the finding given by the Tribunal related to the assessment year 2014-15. Accordingly Misc. Application No.10/Ind/2022 is dismissed as no mistake crept in the impugned order for A.Y.2013-14. The Tribunal for A.Y.2014-15 in ITANo.692/Ind/2017 has decided three grounds in para 13 to 17 at page no.6 & 7 as under: “13. Ground No 1:- The Ld. Counsel for the assessee does not want to press this ground. Therefore, this ground is dismissed as not pressed. 14. Ground No. 2 is identical to that of the Ground No. 2 of IT(SS)A No. 282/Ind/2017and in the absence of any changed circumstances the same shall apply mutatis mutandis. MA No.10 & 11/Ind/2022 Shri Om Prakash Gupta 3 - 15. Ground No. 3: Addition of Rs. 45,000/- towards unexplained gift is the issue before us. 16. We have heard the parties, and perused the relevant materials available on records. 17. The assessee received gift of Rs. 45,000/- from his mother who was an agriculturist and claimed to have been given such gift out of the withdrawals made by her from her bank account maintain with SBI, Dabra. Such confirmation of the gift was obtained from her son Ashok Gupta since the mother of the assessee has already expired. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the evidence of sale of agricultural produce along with the balance sheet were also produced as additional evidence. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied as regards the creditworthiness of the doner and confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO.” 5. These findings of the Tribunal do not relate to the grounds of appeal of the assesse which read as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was not justified in holding that the Learned AO was not justified in making addition of Rs. 8,40,000//- towards unsecured loans received treating the same as unexplained. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was not justified in holding that the Learned AO was justified in making addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards capital investment made holding the investment as made out of unexplained sources.. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was not justified in holding that the Learned AO was justified in making addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards estimated alleged unexplained expenses made on foreign tour. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was not justified in giving a relief of only 100 grams of gole jewellery found and confirming the balance addition out of total addition of Rs. 10,24,005/- made by the AO towards alleged unexplained investment in jewellery. 5. That the assessee craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify any ground(s) of appeal during or before the hearing of the appeal.” MA No.10 & 11/Ind/2022 Shri Om Prakash Gupta 4 - 6. Therefore, we find that there is an apparent mistake in the finding of the Tribunal in para no.13 to 17 at page no.6 & 7 of the impugned order as the grounds of the assesse were not adjudicated while passing the impugned order. Accordingly the order of the Tribunal to the extent of disposing of the appeal in ITANo.692/Ind/2017 for A.Y.2014-15 in para no.13 to 17 at page no. 6 & 7 is recalled for fresh adjudication of the appeal. The registry is directed to fix the appeal of the assessee for fresh hearing and adjudication on 17.08.2023. Since the date of hearing of the appeal is pronounced in open court and has been noted by both the parties therefore, no separate notice be issued in this respect. 7. In the result, MA No.10/Ind/2022 is dismissed & MANo.11/Ind/2022 is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- ( B.M . BIYAN I) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUN TANT MEM BER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore. Dated 04/08 /2023 Patel. Sr. PS आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु "त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु "त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. &वभागीय )*त*न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 6. गाड/ फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, S r . P r i v a t e S e c r e t a r y I . T . A . T . , I n d o r e Order in pronounced in Open Court on conclusion of hearing on 04/ 08/2023