RNB Infrastructure Private Limited, New Delhi V. DCIT Central Circle-32, New Delhi

MA 211/DEL/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0458 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2024
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N.PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. 211/Del/2024 (Arising out of ITA No. 2190/Del/2023) Assessment Year: 2018-19 RNB Infrastructure Private Limited RNB House 1, Shivaji Enclave Main Road, Opp. Mother Dairy Near Raja Garden, New Delhi Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi PAN: AADCR0962Q (Applicant) (Respondent) ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM: By way of this Misc. Application (In short, the ‘MA’), the applicant/assessee seeks rectification in the order dated 04.03.2024 of this Tribunal in ITA No. 2190/Del/2023 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Para 7 and 8 of the MA point out that the addition of Rs.1,10,574/- made in the hands of the applicant/assessee on account of unexplained foreign currency has been upheld, even after submission of the evidence regarding foreign currency, by the Tribunal in the ITA No. 2190/Del/2023. Applicant by Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate, Sh. Aman Garg & Ms. Ishika, CA Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR Date of hearing 26.07.2024 Date of pronouncement 06.08.2024 2 MA No.211/Del/2024 2. The Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal, in the case of the applicant/assessee in the ITA No. 2190/Del/2023, had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,10,574/- on premise that the evidences produced were for the purchase of foreign currency which were mainly for US Dollars and Euros whereas the panchnama showed currency of different countries. It was contended that the assessee had produced evidences of seized foreign currencies; mainly of US Dollars valued Rs.98,854/- out of seized foreign currency valued at Rs.1,10,574/-. Hence, the Tribunal erred in confirming this addition. The Ld. AR prayed for rectification on this score. 3. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the Tribunal had considered the facts in totality, which found duly mentioned in the last line of para-7 of the Tribunal orderin the ITA No. 2190/Del/2023. It was further submitted that the Tribunal had decided the issue on merit and held that the invoices pertained to the year 2012, 2013 and 2014, being 4-6 years old than that the present case of AY 2018-19. Further, the Sr. DR placed emphasis on the fact that the assessee had failed to demonstrate with the help of invoices that it had purchased the entire foreign currencies of all countries and retained it as per the panchnama till the date of search. The Ld. Sr. DR argued that the mistake pointed out by the applicant was beyond the purview of MA as the rectification sought would tantamount to review of the decision taken by the Tribunal in ITA No. 2190/Del/2023. 3 MA No.211/Del/2024 4. Upon hearing both the sides and carefully perusing the records, we find force in the submission of the Ld. Sr. DR. We are of the considered opinion that there was no mistake in the order of the Tribunal in the ITA No. 2190/Del/2023. Hence, this MA stands rejected accordingly. Order pronounced in the open court on 06 August, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (C.N.PRASAD) (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 06 th August, 2024. Binita, Sr.PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) Asstt. Registrar ITAT, New Delhi