The ACIT, Baroda Circle-2, Baroda V. Vaishali Electricals, Baroda

MA 111/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6765 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A. K. GARODIA , AM) M. A. NO.111/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.1046/AHD/2006: AY: 2002-03) THE D.C. I. T., CIRCLE 2(2), BARODA VS M/S. VAISHALI ELECTRICALS, 15/B, RADHA KRISHNA FLATS, NR. AKOTA GARDEN, BARODA PA NO. AABFV 1414 C (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) M. A. NO.118/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO.1043/AHD/2006: AY: 2002-03) M/S. VAISHALI ELECTRICALS, 15/B, RADHA KRISHNA FLATS, NR. AKOTA GARDEN, BARODA VS THE D.C. I. T., CIRCLE 2(2), BARODA PA NO. AABFV 1414 C (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY SHRI O. P. BATHEJA, DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI M. J. SHAH, AR DATE OF HEARING: 23-09-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23-09-2011 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI : THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OF BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY BOTH THE PARTIE S I.E. BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE RECORD REVEALED THAT BOTH THE CROSS APPEALS WERE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 08-01-2010. BOTH T HE PARTIES HAVE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN PARA 7 PAGE 17 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN WHICH IN THE OPERAT IVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE WORD NOT COULD NOT BE MENTIONED DUE TO TYPOGRAPHICAL MA NO.111/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.1046/AHD/2006) MA NO.118/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO.1043/AHD/2006) VAISHALI ELECTRICALS, BARODA 2 MISTAKE. THE OPERATIVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PAR A 7 PAGE 17 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL READS AS UNDER: THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.11,33,3 29/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF A PRESUMPTION. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.11,33,329/- MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. 3. IT IS STATED THAT WHILE GIVING THE AFORESAID FIN DINGS THE WORD NOT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN BETWEEN THE WORDS WAS - JUSTIFIED . THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY SNOWS THAT IT I S TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE WHICH IS CORRECTED ACCORDINGLY. NOW THE ABO VE OPERATIVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WOULD READ AS UNDER: THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.11,3 3,329/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF A PRESUMPTION. WE , THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.11,33,329/- MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS, THEREFORE, RECTIFIED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. MA NO.111/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.1046/AHD/2006) MA NO.118/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO.1043/AHD/2006) VAISHALI ELECTRICALS, BARODA 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATIONS STAND DISP OSED OF ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (A. K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 23-09-2011 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD