Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad V. Pramod Kesharichand Shah, Nani Daman

MA 12/SRT/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2068 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2022
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SITA RAM MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 263; 142(1); 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM MA No.12/SRT/2021 [Arising out of ITA No.43/SRT/2018] Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) The PCIT, Valsad. Vs. Pramod Kesharichand Shah, Jain Street, Nani Daman-396210. èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AEUPS4588R (Assessee) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Sita Ram Meena – Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri Rasesh Shah, CA स ु नवाईकȧतारȣख/ Date of Hearing : 25/02/2022 घोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 17/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: By way of captioned application, the Revenue has sought to point out that a mistake apparent from record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short ‘the Act’) has crept in the order of the Tribunal dated 16.03.2021. 2. The main contention of Learned CIT(DR) for the Revenue is that there is an apparent mistake in quashing the order of Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act by the Tribunal. The Ld. PCIT noted that assessee has unexplained cash deposit of Rs.16,00,000/- and unexplained investment in Mutual Fund to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, and the same had not been examined by Assessing Officer therefore, Ld. PCIT was right in exercising his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Hence, ld CIT-DR stated that Tribunal ought not to have quashed the order of Ld. PCIT passed under section 263 of the Act. 3. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that Assessing Officer has conducted necessary enquiry and it is mentioned in the Page | 2 MA 12/SRT/2021 Assessment Year. 2007-08 Pramod Kesharichand Shah body of the assessment order that assessee has deposited cash in savings bank account to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- and has made investment of Rs.2,00,000/- in units of Mutual Fund. In addition to this, whatever query raised by the Assessing Officer by issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act has been responded by the assessee and Assessing Officer after considering the reply of the assessee and has passed the order under section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, Assessing Officer has examined the issue of cash deposit and brought this fact on the assessment record. Such order passed by the Assessing Officer should not be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Therefore, Tribunal was correct in quashing the order of ld PCIT, hence the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue should be dismissed. 4. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee. We note that Tribunal has narrated the facts of the assessee`s case in para no.4 to 6 of the order. The Tribunal has considered the submissions of both sides and then passed order on merits, vide para no.10 to 15 of the Tribunal order. It is settled position of law that Tribunal can not review its own order. The Review proceedings imply proceedings where a party, as of right, can apply for reconsideration of the matter, already decided upon, after a fresh hearing on the merits of the controversy between the parties, such remedy is certainly not provided by section 254(2) the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, in the garb of an application for rectification, the assessee cannot be permitted to reopen and re-argue the whole matter, which is beyond the scope of the section 254(2) of the Act. We note that there is no mistake apparent on record in the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 43/SRT/2018 for AY.2007-08 dated 16.03.2021, therefore we dismiss the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue. Page | 3 MA 12/SRT/2021 Assessment Year. 2007-08 Pramod Kesharichand Shah 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application (in MA.12/SRT/2021) filed by the Revenue is dismissed Order is pronounced on 17/05/2022 by placing result on Notice Board. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 17/05/2022 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr.CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat