SMT. SAROJ GUPTA, ALWAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

MA 123/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3749 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAN SINGH CIT DHK
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;K NO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM M.A. NO. 123/JP/2018 ( ARISING OUT OF VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1054/JP/2017) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12. SMT. SAROJ GUPTA, R/O C-732, BUDH VIHAR, ALWAR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ANIPG 1219 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSION JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAN SINGH (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 12.10.2018. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/10/2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25 TH JUNE, 2018 OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALL EGED A MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 68 OF RS. 2,78,000/- BE DELETED BY CONSIDERING THE PAST S AVINGS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THI S MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS CALLED FOR HEARING. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A L ETTER DATED 03.10.2018 WHEREBY REQUESTED TO DECIDE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION B ASED ON THE CONTENTS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ITSELF. 2 MA NO. 123/JP/2018 SMT. SAROJ GUPTA, ALWAR. 3. THE LD. D/R HAS OBJECTED TO THE MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECI DED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY GIVING THE FINDING ON MERITS AND, THEREFORE, THE MISCELLAN EOUS APPLICATION IS NOTHING BUT SEEKING REVIEW OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNA L ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 4. HAVING PERUSED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. D/R, WE NOTE THAT THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL WAS REGA RDING AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,78,000/- MADE BY THE AO BEING UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN BANK. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DEC IDED THE ISSUE IN PARA 2.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER :- 2.4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED FROM THE AVAILABLE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED HER EARNINGS FROM SEWING A ND KADHAAI PROFESSION ON SMALL SCALE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5.10 LACS IN CASH IN HER BANK ACCOUNT ON 29. 09.2010. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD PROVIDE THE CONFIRMATIO NS OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2.32 LACS BEFORE THE AO WHO IN TURN A DDED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 2.78 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRME D THE ACTION OF THE AO. WE HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE B ENCH DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDING S OF THE LD. CIT (A). THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. 3 MA NO. 123/JP/2018 SMT. SAROJ GUPTA, ALWAR. THUS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE RELEVANT FACTS ON THE SAID ISSUE WERE DULY CONSIDERED AND ANALYZED WHILE PASSI NG THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND, THEREFORE, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASS ESSEE IS NOTHING BUT SEEKING REVIEW OF THE DECISION TAKEN ON MERITS WHICH IS BEY OND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE IT ACT. THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL U NDER SECTION 254(2) IS VERY LIMITED AND CIRCUMSCRIBED ONLY TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE APPAR ENT AND MANIFEST ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND NOT TO DECIDE ANY ISSUE WHICH WOULD AMOUNT TO RE-EVALUATION OF THE FACTS AND MERITS ON THE ISSUE ALREADY DECIDED BY TH E TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE OR MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOU S APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/10/2 018. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 12/10/2018. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SMT. SAROJ GUPTA, ALWAR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO, WARD 1(1), ALWAR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (MA NO. 123/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 4 MA NO. 123/JP/2018 SMT. SAROJ GUPTA, ALWAR. 5 MA NO. 123/JP/2018 SMT. SAROJ GUPTA, ALWAR.