Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Amritsar. V. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar.

MA 12/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3559 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-04-2022
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M. A. No. 12/Asr/2019 (Arising out of ITA No. 516/Asr/2015) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Sh. Rajiv Kumar 64-E, Rani Ka Bagh Amritsar (PB) [PAN: AAZPK 1231R] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Amritsar (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 14.07.2022 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, J.M.: The miscellaneous application was filed by the Assessee against the order of the ITAT dated 14.02.2019 in ITA No. 516/Asr/2015. 2. That fact is that in Para No. 13 in the main order was adjudicated as follows: “13. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the arguments of the Revenue that the assessee could not have any savings out of income earned in the immediately preceding Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2003-04 are against real MA No. 12/Asr/2019 Rajiv Kumar v. ITO 2 life facts. The assessee will definitely have some savings out of the past years income. It is seen that the assessee had shown net income of Rs. 1,68,860/- in the Assessment Year 2003-04 and Rs. 1,83,920/- in the Assessment Year 2004-05. Thus, we estimate the savings of the assessee in the Assessment Year 2003-04 at Rs. 85,000/- and also in the Assessment Year 2004-05 at Rs. 87,000/-. According, we allow deduction on account of deposit in the bank of Rs. 85,000/- in the Assessment Year 2005-06 and confirm the addition of Rs. 92,500/- for the Assessment Year 2005-06. Similarly, we allow credit for deposit in the bank account out of past year savings of Rs. 85,000/- in the Assessment Year 2006-07 and delete the addition of Rs. 85,000/-. Thus, the grounds of appeal of Assessment Year 2005-06 is partly allowed and for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is allowed.” But in the petition the assessee filed the following the observation for rectification which is extracted as follows: “3. That perusal of para of the order indicates that the Hon’ble ITAT estimated the savings of the assessee in the assessment year 2003-04 at Rs. 85,000/- and in the assessment year at Rs.87,000/- but while allowing the relief (deduction) Rs. 85,000/- has been allowed instead of Rs. 87,000/- + Rs. 85,000/- = Rs.1,72,000/-. The mistake being apparent from the order may kindly be rectified.” 3. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available in the record. It is fact that assessment year 2003-04 the saving is at Rs.85,000/- and this order in assessment year 2004-05 is at Rs.87,000/-. Accordingly, the total amount will be allowed at Rs. 1,72,000/-. The order in bearing ITA No. 516/Asr/2015 is rectified accordingly. 4. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.07.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr. PS* MA No. 12/Asr/2019 Rajiv Kumar v. ITO 3 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File True Copy By Order