DCIT CEN CIR 2, V. SAYERMAL JAIN,

MA 146/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2134 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH L PATHADE
• Assessee Lawyers: V K TULSIAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Block assessment
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE I.P.BANSAL , JM AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, AM M.A. NOS. 146 & 147/MUM/2013 (ARISING OUT OF /I.T.A. NOS.3402 & 3403/MUM/2009 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS :1998-99 & 1999-2000 THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, OLD CGO BLDG., MUMBAI-400 008 SHRI SAYTERMAL JAIN, FLAT NO. 435, SOMAJI BLDG., PATHARE BAPURAO ROAD, OPP. ISLAMPURA, MUMBAI-400 004 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : ABOPJ 4136H ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( !' / RESPONDENT ) # / APPLICANT BY : ` SHRI PRAKASH L. PATHADE !' $ # /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.K. TULSIAN $ %& / DATE OF HEARING :04.07.2014 '( $ %& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :04.07.2014 )* / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS BY THE REVENUE AR E ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 3402 & 340 3/MUM/2009. 2. THE REVENUE, INTER ALIA, HAS ALLEGED AS UNDER: IT IS QUITE CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE, THAT THE ISSUE O F ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE ITAT ON THE MERITS OF THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT ONLY ON THE TECHNICAL GROUNDS T HAT ONCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMEN T, THERE M.A. NOS. 146 & 147/M/2013 2 IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING THE SAME ADDITION IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE ITAT FAILED TO AP PRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT MA DE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DELETED BY THE CI T(A) ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS AND ONCE THE ADDITION IN THE BLOC K ASSESSMENT TOO HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE HONBLE ITAT ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS, A SITUATION HAS ARISEN WHEREBY T HE ADDITION DOES NOT STAND ANYWHERE, NEITHER IN THE RE GULAR ASSESSMENT NOR IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS OF THE CASE INSTEAD OF DELETING THE ADDITION ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. 3. HEARD BOTH SIDES. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 3402 & 3403/M/09. WE HAVE ALS O PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN IT(SS) NOS. 163 & 183/M/05 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. FACTS OF THE CASE SHOW THAT IN THE BLOCK A SSESSMENT, CERTAIN ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDITS WERE MADE WHIC H WERE ALSO FOUND TO BE MADE IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT APPEALS WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE I N REGULAR ASSESSMENTS HELD THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDITS, NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS NOT JUSTI FIED IN THE CASE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT S WERE DELETED FOR A.Y. 1998-99 AND 1999-2000. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER U/S. 154 DT. 26.3.2009 PRESUMED THAT THE TRIB UNAL HAS FORMED A VIEW THAT THIS ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND THAT IT SHOULD BE MADE IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT. ACCORDIN GLY, THE LD. CIT(A) RECTIFIED HIS ORDER AND WITHDREW THE DELETION OF TH E ADDITION OF RS. 40,15,000/- FOR A.Y. 1998-99 & RS. 4,50,000/- FOR A ,Y. 1999-2000. 4. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THIS OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITA NOS. 3402 & 3403/M/09 WHIC H IS THE IMPUGNED M.A. NOS. 146 & 147/M/2013 3 ORDER UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THESE MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATIONS. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT: IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, BY NO STRETCH OF LOGIC , THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL CAN BE SEEMED TO POINT OUT THAT THE ADDITIONS SO DISALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE REQUIRED ON MERITS TO BE ADDED IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AT THE COST OF REPETITION, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE NO FINDINGS BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE F ACT THAT WHAT HAS BEEN DELETED IN THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS DESERVES TO BE ADDED IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS. 5. THE TRIBUNAL ACCORDINGLY VACATED THE IMPUGNED RE CTIFICATION ORDER. CONSIDERING ALL THESE IN TOTALITY, WE DO NOT FIND A NY MERIT IN THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS BY THE REVENUE WHICH ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FI LED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 4 TH JULY, 2014. )* $ ( + ,)- 04.07.2014 ( $ . SD/- SD/- (I.P.BANSAL) (N.K. BILLAIYA) ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; ,) DATED 04.07.2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS