Smt. Sanjukta Singh, Cuttack V. ITO Ward-2(30, Cuttack

MA 13/CTK/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6608 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE MANISH AGARWAL Smt.Sanjukta Singh, Samanta Sahi, B.K.Road, Cuttack PAN/GIR No (Appellant Per George Mathan, JM This is a miscellaneous application dated 12.3.2024 assessment year 2. Shri S.N.Sahu, S.C.Mohanty, Sr . IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No.13/CTK/2024 (in ITA No.258/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sanjukta Singh, Samanta Sahi, B.K.Road, Vs. ITO, Ward Cuttack PAN/GIR No.AQGPS 9627 P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.N.Sahu, Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Date of Hearing : 07/0 Date of Pronouncement : 07/0 O R D E R George Mathan, JM This is a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee dated 12.3.2024 of the Tribunal in ITA No.258/CTK/ assessment year 2016-17. S.N.Sahu, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr . DR appeared for the revenue. Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 23) ITO, Ward-2(3), Respondent) Adv : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR 06/2024 /06/2024 filed by the assessee in the order ITA No.258/CTK/2023 for the the assessee and Shri M.A.No.13/CTK/2024 (in ITA No.258/CTK/2023) Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page2 | 4 3. In the Miscellaneous Application, the assessee has mentioned that there is an error to the extent that in para 3 of the order of the Tribunal, the figure mentioned as Rs.24,28,734/- is to be read as Rs.21,80,534/-. 4. It was further submitted by ld AR that the assessee had filed affidavits in regard to gifts made by the family members. It was the submission that the affidavits had evidentiary value and it cannot be discarded just like it. It was the submission that non-considering the affidavits were a mistake apparent from the record and the order of the Tribunal on this ground requires to be recalled. 5. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that admittedly there is a mistake in wrong mentioning of figure of Rs.24,28,734/- as against Rs.21,80,534/- in para 3 of the order of the Tribunal. In regard to issue of affidavits from the relatives, it was submitted that the Tribunal has considered the affidavits and has then decided the issue against the assessee. It was the submission that there is no error in the order of the Tribunal. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. Verification of the records clearly shows that this is a mistake apparent from record and consequently, in para 3 of the order of the Tribunal, the sentence reading was that “ It was the submission that on appeal, the ld CIT(A) had accepted the claim of the assessee of personal cash saving of Rs.2,48,200/- and the balance of Rs.24,28,734/- was confirmed”. It should be read as “It was the M.A.No.13/CTK/2024 (in ITA No.258/CTK/2023) Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page3 | 4 submission that on appeal, the ld CIT(A) had accepted the claim of the assessee of personal cash savings of Rs.2,48,200/- and the balance of Rs.21,80,534/- was confirmed”. 7. A perusal of the M.A. as filed by the assessee shows that the assessee is trying to draw inference from sentences of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment. It is not considering the judgment in its entirety. The claim that the affidavit has evidentiary value does not stand to reason insofar as an affidavit has evidentiary value when the same is supported by some evidences and an affidavit per se unless proof is available cannot be considered as having any evidentiary value. It must be mentioned here that the assessee has not produced the so called relatives, who gave gifts before the Assessing Officer for examination. The assessee has not produced any evidence of the so called relatives, having any business income. The assessee has also not produced any evidence to show that the so called relatives have maintained cash in hand. The assessee has miserably failed to produce any proof to show where they have kept the so called cash in hand. The assessee has also categorically admitted that the income of the so called relatives is being offered on estimate basis. No evidence whatsoever to prove the source of income, the methodology of holding the income, nor proof of having such income has been produced. It is under these circumstances, the Tribunal has held that the assessee has failed to substantiate its arguments and the evidence produced. We find M.A.No.13/CTK/2024 (in ITA No.258/CTK/2023) Assessment Year : 2016-17 Page4 | 4 that the assessee has been unable to point out any specific error in regard to the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. This being so, on this count, the M.A. filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 07/06/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 07/06/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Smt.Sanjukta Singh, Samanta Sahi, B.K.Road, Cuttack 2. The Respondent: ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy//