M/s. Krupanidhi Construction, Ahmedabad V. The Jt.CIT.,Range-5, Baroda

MA 144/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9902 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL R SHAH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUN TANT MEMBER M/S KRUPANIDHI CONSTRUCTION 7, KALYANNAGAR SOCIETY-1 NEAR VITTHAL NAGAR WADI, KARELIBAUG, BARODA PAN NO. AAGFK7000E (APPELLANT) VS . JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-5 BARODA (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SRI Y.P. VERMA, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SRI ANIL R. SHAH, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 01-03-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-03-2013 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS ARISEN OUT OF T HE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2526/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 DATE D 31-05-2012. 2. THROUGH THIS MISC. APPLICATION ASSESSEE WANTS US TO RECALL OUR DATED 31-05-2012 ON THE GROUND THAT TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDI NG THE APPEAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED GROUND NO. 2(A) AND 2(B) TAKEN BY THE AS SESSEE ACCORDING TO WHICH ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE OF THE M.A. NO. 144/AHD/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 2526/AHD/2010) A.Y.:-2007-08 M.A NO. 144/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE M/S KRUPANIDHI CONSTRUCTION VS. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 DEPOSITOR AND ONCE HIS IDENTITY WAS ESTABLISHED AND AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BY CHEQUE IT WAS FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO PROBE FURTHE R OF THE DEPOSITOR ABOUT HIS SOURCE OF RECEIPT AND HIS CREDITWORTHINESS ETC. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN SUPPORT OF THIS GROUND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RE LIED ON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS ACCORDING TO WHICH SOURCE OF SOURCE WAS NOT TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ASSESSEE AND IT WAS FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO DISPROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR. SINCE THIS WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY TH E TRIBUNAL A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE ORDER DATED 31-05-2012 MAY KINDLY BE RECALLED. L D. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER MAKING FURTHER INQUIRIES HAVE CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE CREDITOR WAS NOT IN A P OSITION TO ADVANCE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND WAS RIGHTLY SUSTAINED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL, AND THEREFORE, T HERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND IF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED IT WILL AMOUNT TO REVIEWING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT TRIBUNAL HA S NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER, THEREFORE, M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DESERV ES TO BE DISMISSED. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT GROUND NO. 2(A) AND 2(B) RELATE TO THE CONTENTION T HAT ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE IN RESPECT T O MONEY RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM A PERSON AND ONCE THE NAME OF THE CRE DITOR IS GIVEN AND IF THE PAYMENT IS MADE BY CHEQUE IT IS LEFT TO THE REVENUE TO DISAPPROVE THAT THE CREDITOR WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO GIVE THIS MUCH AM OUNT TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT DOING SO ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. FOR MAKI NG THIS SUBMISSION RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON CASE LAWS. HOWEVER WE FIND THAT EXACTLY THE SAME HAS BEEN DONE BY THE A.O. IN THIS CASE AS DURI NG THE FURTHER M.A NO. 144/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE M/S KRUPANIDHI CONSTRUCTION VS. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 INVESTIGATION ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE CRED ITOR SRI RAJENDRA C SHAH DEPOSITED RS. 3,45000/- IN CASH DURING THE SPAN OF THREE MONTHS ONLY IN HIS ACCOUNT BEFORE ISSUING CHEQUE OF THIS AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT A PERSON EA RNING SALARY OF RS. 82,240/- CANNOT SAVE THIS MUCH AMOUNT DURING A SHOR T SPAN OF TWO MONTHS. HE THEREFORE DOUBTED CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDIT OR AND IGNORED THE CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF THIS CREDIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. IN VIEW OF THESE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE WE ARE N OT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN OUR ORDER DATED 31-05-2012 AND THEREFORE M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THIS M.A. OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (D.K.TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 15 /03/2013 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , ! , '# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. $% &' / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , ( / ' ) ! , '# M.A NO. 144/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE M/S KRUPANIDHI CONSTRUCTION VS. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 STRENGTHENED PREPARATION & DELIVERY OF ORDERS IN TH E ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 04-03-2013 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE N.A. 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 05-03-2013 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 06-03-2013 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION XXXX 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 06-03-2013 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 01-04-2013 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THIS FILE YES 9) ORDER SENT TO BENCH CLERK 15-03-2013