Baroda Conductors Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda

MA 135/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1476 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANTOSH KARNANI
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL R SHAH; KINJAL SHAH ARS
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 201; 22

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A NO.135/AHD/2018 IN ./ ITA NO. 3590 / AHD/ 2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2007 - 2008 BARODA CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD. GOKUL, PLOT 22 SHIVASHRAY SAIYAD, VASANA ROAD, VADODARA. PAN NO.AAACB8653R VS THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE - 1(1)(1) BARODA. (APPLICANT) (RESPONENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANIL R SHAH & MS. KINJAL SHAH, ARS REVENUE BY : SHRI SANTOSH KARNANI, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 20 / 07 /201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10 / 10 /201 8 / O R D E R PER MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : IN THE INSTANT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 03/01/2018, PASSED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH, IN ITA NO.3590/AHD/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. THE SAID MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BE E N FILED , PRAYING FOR RE - CALLING OF THE ORDER DATED 03/01./2018, ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, S INCE THE ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT FOR BY WAY OF AN M.A NO.135/AHD/2018 IN ITA NO.3590/AHD/2015 A.Y.2007 - 08. 2 APPLICATION WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD.BENCH AND MATER WAS ULTIMATELY DISPOSED OF AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 2. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THE LD.CIT(A) ON 30/10/2015, UPHELD THE ORDER OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS.26.30 LACS PASSED BY THE LD.AO PERTAINING TO THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AMOUNTING TO RS.26,26,322/ - BY THE ORDER DA TED 26/12/2011, PROCEEDING U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT APPEARS FROM THE ORDER ON WHICH RECTIFICATION IS SOU GHT FOR , THAT THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DULY CONTESTED THE HEARING ON 03/01/2018, AND MADE HIS SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF HIS C ASE. SUCH SUBMISSION WAS RECORDED AT PARAGRAPH 2 IN THE SAID ORDER. FURTHER, WHILE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THE LD.TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THE FOLLOWING AT PARAGRAPH 4 THEREIN. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO REBUT THE FACT THAT ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS BALANCE SHEET HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS IN QUESTION WHEREIN IT HAD DEPOSITED UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS INCOME. WE THEREFORE EXPRESS OUR AGREEMENT WITH BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FINDIN GS THAT THE SAID NON DISCLOSURE AMOUNTED TO CONCEALMENT OF TAXABLE INCOME AS THE ASSESSEE NOT INCLUDED ITS DEPOSITS IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME AT THE FIRST INSTANCE. WE ALSO FIND THAT ASSESSEE S ACT AND CONDUCT IN QUESTION IN NOT INCLUDING EITHER THE INCOME IN QUESTION OR THE RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS IN ITS BOOKS ATTRACTS LATTER LIMB OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AS WELL WITH AN INTENTION TO REDUCE ITS TAX LIABILITY. WE ACCORDINGLY REJECT ASSESSEE S ARGUMENTS RELYING ON ABOVE QUANTUM DEVEL O PMEN TS. THE CIT(A) S FINDING STAND AFFIRMED 3. SINCE THE LD.COU N SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DULY APPEAR ED BEFORE THE BENCH, ARGUED THE MATTER AT LENGTH AND WHEN THE SAME WAS RECORDED IN THE ORDER DATED 03/01/2018, VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY THE LD.BENCH AS ARGU ED BY THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE APPRECIATED BY US. WE FIND NO ERROR/MISTAKE IN THE ORDER UNDER REFERENCE MADE BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH UPON WHICH RECTIFICATION IS NEEDED. NEEDLES TO MENTION THAT T HE POWER OF RECTIFICATION U/ S.254(2) OF THE ACT, CAN ONLY BE EXERCISED WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE M.A NO.135/AHD/2018 IN ITA NO.3590/AHD/2015 A.Y.2007 - 08. 3 RECTIFIED IS OBVIOUS PATENT MISTAKE, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTA BLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND LONG DRAWN PROCE SS OF REASONING ON POINT OF WHIC H THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINION. 4. IN VIEW OF THE MATTER, CONSIDERIN G THE ENTIRE ASPECT , WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE . T HEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISS ED . 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10 / 10 / 201 8 AT AHMEDABAD. - SD - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - SD - ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY AHMEDABAD; DATED 10 / 10 / 201 8 MANISH / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A), AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD M.A NO.135/AHD/2018 IN ITA NO.3590/AHD/2015 A.Y.2007 - 08. 4