The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana V. M/s. C. K. Shah & Co., Mehsana

MA 145/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2397 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.145/AHD/2019 (IN ./IN ITA NO. 3461/AHD/2016) [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14] THE ITO WARD-1 MEHSANA / VS. M/S.C.K. SHAH & CO. STATION ROAD MEHSANA 384 001 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AADFC 7828 B ( / APPLICANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIDHYUT TRIVEDI, SR. DR / RESPONDENT BY : -NONE- / DATE OF HEARING 18/10/2019 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26/11/2019 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3461/AHD/2016 ASSESSEES APPEAL), THE REVENUE HAS REQUESTED FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD DATED 01/11/2018 PASSED IN ITA NO. 3461/AHD/2016 FOR AY 2 013-14. MA NO.145/AHD/2019 BY REVENUE (IN ITA NO.3461/AHD/2016-BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.C.K. SHAH & CO. ASST. YEAR - 2013-14 - 2 - 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING ON THE AP POINTED DATE, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE AS SESSEE. HOWEVER, WE DECIDED TO PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE RAISED B Y THE REVENUE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE BUT AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMI TTED THAT A MISTAKE CREPT IN THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES APPEAL WHILE REPRODUCING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE, I.E. GROUND NO. 2. IN THE SAID TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE GROUN D NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.78,493/- AS BROKERAGE INCOME. 3.1 THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND NO . 2 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASED AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.3,46,507/- AS BROKERAGE INCOME. 3.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS FILED FOR THE NECESSARY RECTIFICATI ON WHICH READS AS UNDER: 3. IN THIS MATTER IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD VIDE ORDER NO.CIT(A)-GNR/292/2015-16 DATE D 19/09/2016 HAS MA NO.145/AHD/2019 BY REVENUE (IN ITA NO.3461/AHD/2016-BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.C.K. SHAH & CO. ASST. YEAR - 2013-14 - 3 - CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.54,504/- AS DEPOSIT IN TEREST INCOME AND ADDITION OF RS.3,46,507/- AS BROKERAGE INCOME (COPY ENCLOSED ). AS PER YOUR HONOURS ORDER IN PLACE OF RS.3,46,507/- THE AMOUNT OF RS.78 ,493/- IS WRITTEN IN SUBPARA-2 OF PARA-2 AND ALSO THE SAME IS CONFIRMED IN PARA 13.3. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE AND HAV E PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE AO HAS CLAIMED AN EXPENSE OF RS. 1,84,795.00 AGAINST THE B ROKERAGE INCOME AND FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF BROKERAGE INCOME FOR RS. 2,68,014.00 (RS. 4,52,809.00 1,84,795.00) AGREED TO OFFER THE SAME AS INCOME. HOWEVER, THE AO AGREED TO ALLOW THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,06, 302.00 AGAINST THE IMPUGNED BROKERAGE INCOME AND THEREFORE THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,46,507.00 (4,52,809.00 1,84,795.00) TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THUS, THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE REMAINS A T RS. 78,493.00 (1,84,795.00 - 1,06,302.00) ONLY. ALL THESE FACTS A RE AVAILABLE IN THE ORDER OF THE AO. FURTHERMORE, AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL HEA RING THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BY M ISTAKE HAS CHALLENGED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ADDITION OF THE BROKERAGE INCO ME I.E. 3,46,507.00 BY MISTAKE WHEREAS THE CORRECT AMOUNT IN DISPUTE IS OF RS. 78,493.00 ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ITAT HAS RECORDED CORRECT AMOUNT O F DISPUTE AS CONCEDED BY THE LEARNED AR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL HEARING AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AS ALLEGED BY THE REVENUE. THUS, THE MISCE LLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. MA NO.145/AHD/2019 BY REVENUE (IN ITA NO.3461/AHD/2016-BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. M/S.C.K. SHAH & CO. ASST. YEAR - 2013-14 - 4 - 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISPOSED OF. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26/11/2019 SD/- SD/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( WASEEM AHMED ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 26/11/2019 &.., .(.. / T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ( ) / THE CIT(A)-GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD 5. /01 ((*+ , *+# , ) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 145 6 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 21.10.2019 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 29.10.2019/22.11.19 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.27.11.19 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 27.11.19 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER