Shri Sangram Jaywantrao Gade, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune

MA 172/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Sangram Jaywantrao Gade, the applicant, who filed a miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to recall the Tribunal's order dated 30.05.2022. The original appeal (ITA.No.513/PUN./2018) concerned an addition of Rs.21,09,500 to the assessee's income, treated as unexplained cash deposits in an IDBI Bank account. The Tribunal had partly accepted the appeal, reducing the addition to Rs.17,59,500 after considering the assessee's social status and granting relief of Rs.2.50 lakhs. The assessee argued that the Tribunal had overlooked the corresponding withdrawals when affirming the addition, but the Tribunal found this claim unsupported by the initial pleadings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137690 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: DismissedDismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2022
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., CIT vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.172/PUN/2022 Arising out of ITA No.513/PUN/2018 - Assessment Year 2008-09 Sangram Jaywantrao Gade, Flat No.3, Sr.No.1201/D, Shirole Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. PIN – 411 004. PAN AGOPG8777A vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3 (1), Pune. Applicant Respondent Assessee by : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Revenue by : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date of hearing : 03.02.2022 Date of pronouncement : 03.02.2022 ORDER This assessee’s miscellaneous application filed u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) seeks to recall the tribunal’s order herein dated 30.05.2022, partly accepting the main appeal ITA.No.513/PUN./2018 in the following terms : “2. Coming to assessee’s sole substantive ground that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making section 69A addition of Rs.21,09,500/- thereby treating his cash deposits in IDBI Bank account as unexplained, it transpires at the outset that he himself is very fair in not disputing the clinching fact that they have already adopted ‘peak’ figure whilst making the impugned 2 MA.No.172/PUN./2022 in ITA.No.513/PUN./2018 addition. This is coupled with the fact that the assessee had not filed any explanation regarding source of the impugned deposits. Faced with this situation, I hold that the learned lower authorities have rightly made the impugned addition in assessee’s hands. The same is confirmed in principle. 3. Next comes equally important aspect of quantification of the impugned addition. Mr. Desai could hardly dispute the fact that the learned lower authorities have not granted benefit of any cash in hand to the assessee thereby considering his social status. Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate that the assessee deserves relief of Rs.2.50 lakhs only out of the impugned addition amounting to Rs.21,09,518/- in issue. The same is upheld to the extent of Rs.17,59,500/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.” Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Learned counsel vehemently submitted during the course of hearing that this tribunal has committed an apparent error in not considering the corresponding withdrawals whilst affirming the impugned addition of Rs.21,09,500/-. I find no merit in the assessee’s instant submission once there are no pleadings to this effect in the corresponding substantive ground raised in the main appeal. 3 MA.No.172/PUN./2022 in ITA.No.513/PUN./2018 Various landmark judicial precedents [2008] 305 ITR 277 (SC) ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.; [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.; and [1993] 203 ITR 497 (Bom.) CIT vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co. have settled the law that the purpose of sec.254(2) rectification is only to correct apparent mistakes than adopting long drawn process of roving enquiries. 3. No other ground or argument has been pressed before me during the course of hearing. 4. This assessee’s miscellaneous application is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03 rd February, 2023. Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 03 rd February, 2023 VBP/- Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5 . DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune.