RANJIT SHIVRAM RAUT, MUMBAI V. ITO , WARD-3, , PALGHAR

MA 198/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by Ranjit Shivram Raut against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed a ground of appeal concerning the substantiation of cash payments. The assessee argued that the Tribunal had overlooked evidence presented during the appeal, which substantiated that cash payments were made by Mr. Rajeev Y. Patil to the seller of land on behalf of the assessee. However, the Tribunal maintained that the evidence did not conclusively prove that the payments were made on behalf of the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the M.A.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112979 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBODH RATNAPARKHI
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 132; 13

Judgement Text

1 | P a g e IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH“FRIDAY-D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No.198/Mum/2023 [In ITA No.1902/Mum/2020] (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ranjit Shivram Raut, B-301, Dasrath Singh Nagar, Devashi Road, Bhaji Market, Palghar, Maharashtra-401404. बनाम/ Vs. ITO, Ward-3,Palghar. ̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCG1281A (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) अपीलाथŎ ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by: Shri Sridhar G.Menon, Sr.AR सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Hearing 19/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 23/05/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT - AM: By way of this Miscellaneous Application (“M.A”), the assessee is seeking rectification/recall of the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1902/Mum/2020 for Assessment Year (“AY”) 2014-15. 2. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the relevant paras of the M.A., which are reproduced as under:- 2 | P a g e 3. “The Hon. Members have vide order dated 16.11.2022, dismissed ground no. 3 of appeal by stating at para no. 13/page no. 17 as under:- “13. Before us also the Ld counsel of the assessee failed to substantiate whether those payments made by Mr Rajeev Y. Patil have been made to the seller of the land on behalf of the assessee. The assessee did not produce Mr Rajeev Y. Patil or seller of the land before the lower authorities to support his contention that those cash amounts were paid on behalf of the assessee. In such circumstances, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly, we uphold the same. The Ground of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed." 4. On this issue, during the course of hearing before the Hon. Members, attention was drawn to the following evidences in the form of vouchers for cash payment of Rs.66,00,000/- (Rs. 22,00,000 x 3 vouchers) found in the course of search action u/s 132 at premises of Mr. Rajeev Patil. Copies of Vouchers seized from the premises of Mr. Rajeev Y. Patil in the course of search action u/s 132 on 31.07.2014 reflecting payment of Rs.22,00,000/- in cash for each plot of land. It may be noted that the dates of payments match with the dates of the respective agreements. Enclosed in paperbook at pg nos. 169 to 171 3 | P a g e Apart from oral arguments, a written note was also placed before the Hon. Members during hearing on 06.09.2022 and the evidences of cash payment by Mr. Rajeev Y. Patil discussed therein at para no.05/pg nos. 03 & 04 of the said note. 5. On the background of the above facts, the appellant submits that the statement in the appeal order at para13 that "Before us also the Ld counsel of the assessee failed to substantiate whether those payments made by Mr Rajeev Y. Patil have been made to the seller of the land on behalf of the assessee" is factually incorrect. The appellant had during appeal hearing. (1) Drawn attention to the fact that evidences of cash payments to the partners of the seller firm were evidenced by vouchers seized during search action u/s 132 on Mr. Rajeev Y. Patil, wherein specific payments to each partner are noted as under. Sr.No. Name of the partner of M/s Man United (Seller) Amount (Rs) Page no. of paperbook 1. Babulal H. Jain 22,00,000/- 169 2. Gaurav Tejpal Joshi 22,00,000/- 170 3. Llyod Walter Carvalho 22,00,000/- 171 Thus, the cash payments of Rs. 66,00,000/- made by Mr. Rajeev Y. Patil are well evidenced by records found and seized by the department in the course of search action u/ 132 carried out on him on 31.07.2014. 4 | P a g e ii) During appeal hearing, attention was also drawn to pg nos. 172 & 173 of paperbook which are vouchers for payment of cheque consideration Rs.3,00,000/- to each partner of M/s. Maa United by account payee cheques. Similarly, bank statement of the assessee reflecting receipt of funds from Mr.Rajeev Y. Patil and payment to partners of the seller firm was also demonstrated. Thus, payment of consideration by Mr. Rajeev Y. Patil for acquisition of land plots was well substantiated. 6. Thus, ground no. 3 is decided against the assessee based on alleged failure to substantiate cash payment of Rs. 66,00,000/- by Mr. Rajeev Y. Patil to the seller of land plots, but the facts are otherwise. As listed at para no. 5 above, the evidences of cash payment of Rs. 66,00,000/- to the seller of land plots was brought to the attention of the Hon. Members and related evidences examined during appeal hearing. Statement to the contrary in the finding of the Hon. Tribunal has resulted in decision adverse to the appellant, so far as it relates to ground no 3 of the appeal. As the mistake is apparent from records, the same may kindly be rectified u/s 254 (2) of the I.T. Act 1961 r.w. rule 34A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963.” 3. We have heard the rival contentions on the issue in dispute and perused the material available on record. It is 5 | P a g e the contention of the assessee that the Tribunal has not considered the evidences filed during the course of hearing, which were available in the form of Paper Book at pages 169 to 171 related to the issue of cost of acquisition of the immovable property. According to Ld. Counsel for the assessee, taking into consideration the documents filed, the cost of acquisition of the property should have been enhanced by Rs.66,00,000/-. However, attention of Ld. Counsel for the assessee was brought o the finding of the Tribunal in para 13 where it is mentioned that cash amount of Rs. 66,00,000/- (as per in the vouchers enclosed at pages 169 to 171 of Paper Book), was not getting established that whether the same was paid on behalf of the assessee. On the basis of said reasoning, the Tribunal upheld the order of Ld.CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. In our opinion, there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal in the arriving of the said decision on the basis of the documentary evidences submitted during the course of hearing. 4. On perusal of the said pages of the paper Book at pages 169 to 171, it is evident that there is no mention that the 6 | P a g e said payment has been made on behalf of the assessee. In such circumstances, recalling of the order will amount to review of the order of the Tribunal, which we are not permitted in law. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the assessee raised in the present M.A. 5. In the result, the M.A. filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.05.2023. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 23/05/2023 *Amit Kumar, Sr. PS* आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// 1. उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai