The ITO, Patan Ward -4, Mehsana V. M/s Bhumi Industries, Mehsana

MA 175/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7115 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND SHRI A. K. GARO DIA, AM) M. A. NO.175/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NO.1636/AHD/2005: AY: 2001-02) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATAN WARD-4, MEHSANA VS M/S. BHUMI INDUSTRIES, RANGPURDA, TALUKA KADI PAN NO. AACFB 8866 B (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. N. DIVETIA, AR DATE OF HEARING: 14-10-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14-10-2011 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI : THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATAN, WARD-4, MEHSANA AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 24-10-2008 IN ITA NO.1636/AHD /2005. 2. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO ABOVE REVE ALS THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BEING THE TAX EFF ECT WAS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS.1,00,000/-. 3. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO MADE: (I) ADDITION OF SUPPRESSED STOCK AMOUNTING TO RS.11,53,964/-, (II) ADDITION OF SUPPRESSED SALES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,56,487/- AND (II I) ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.2,56,674/-. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL THE TAX E FFECT WAS MA NO.175/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NO.1636/AHD/2005) THE ITO, PATAN, WARD 4, MEHSANA VS M/S. BHUMI INDUS TRIES 2 EXCEEDING RS.5,00,000/-. THEREFORE, THERE IS A MIST AKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY BE REVIVED FOR DECISION ON MERIT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS NO OBJECTION TO ALLO W THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FAC TS. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED DR HAS CORRECTLY POINTED OUT THAT THREE ADDITIONS NOTED ABOVE WERE MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER T OTALING TO RS.16,67,125/-. ALL THE THREE ADDITIONS WERE DELETE D BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE TAX EFFECT ON THE ADDITIONS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WOULD BE MORE THAN THE PRESCRIBED LI MIT. THEREFORE, THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR LESSER TAX EFFECT. THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DR. WE ACCORDINGLY RECALL THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L DATED 24-10-2008 AND RESTORE THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. OFFICE IS DIRE CTED TO FIX THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL FOR HEARING ON MERIT IN DUE COU RSE AND NOTICE BE ISSUED TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE REVE NUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (A. K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT/- MA NO.175/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NO.1636/AHD/2005) THE ITO, PATAN, WARD 4, MEHSANA VS M/S. BHUMI INDUS TRIES 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD