Smt. Gopalidevi C. Nandwani L/H Mohinderkr. C. Nandwani, Surat V. The ACIT, Circle-2, Surat

MA 217/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2220 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MK SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, J.M. & SHRI ANIL CH ATURVEDI, A.M.) M.A NO: 103/AHD/2013 (IN IT(SS)A NO: 67/AHD/2008) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1.04.1 990 TO 27-04-2006) M.A. NO. 21 7/AHD/2013 (IN C.O. NO. 32 0/AHD/2013) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1-4-19 90 TO 27-04-2006) SMT. GOPALIDEVI CHANADAS NANDWANI, L/H MOHINDERKUMAR CHANANDAS NANDWANI, Q-2252, STM, RING ROAD, SURAT. V/S A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.P. SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.K. SINGH, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 18-07-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 -08-2014 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THE ABOVE 2 MAS ARE ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO. 6 7/AHD/2008 & C.O. NO.320/AHD/2013, ORDER DATED 25.03.2011. 2. THE LD. A.R. VIDE LETTER DATED 19.12.2013 HAS RE QUESTED FOR WITHDRAWING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 103/AHD/2013 ARISING OUT OF IT(SS) A NO. 67/AHD/2008 TO WHICH REVENUE HAS NO OBJECTION. WE T HEREFORE DISMISS THE M.A. NO. 103/AHD/2013. M.A. NO. 217/AHD/2013 M.A NOS 103 & 217/ AHD/2013 . B.P. 1-04-1990 T O 27-04- 2006 2 3. BY THIS MA, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED FOR RECALLIN G THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN C.O NO. 320/AHD/2013 ORDER DATED 13.09.2013. 4. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), DEPARTMENT HAD PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AND ASSESS EE HAD ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE O RDER PASSED U/S. 158 BD OF THE ACT AND HAD ALSO CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,04,130/- BEING ALLEGED ON MONEY PAID ON PURCHASE OF PLOTS. THE L D. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR T HE REASONS STATED IN PARA 6 OF THE ORDER HELD THAT NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ON MONEY CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS THERE WAS LACK OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ADDITION AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL OF REVENUE WAS DISMISSED. ACCORDING TO LD. A.R. THE CONSEQUENCE OF DISMISSAL OF REVENUES APPEAL WAS TH AT THE GROUND ON MERITS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION OF O N MONEY IN HIS HANDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS IT WAS INTER CONNECTED WITH THE GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE. LD. A.R. POINTS OUT THAT THE HONBLE TRIBU NAL WHILE DECIDING THE C.O OF THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER ERRONEOUSLY HELD THAT THE G ROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN C.O. WAS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THE ADDITION OF ALLEGED BLACK MONEY WILL STILL BE THERE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER DISPOSING OF THE C.O MAY BE AMENDED BY CLARIFYING THAT THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE C.O CHAL LENGING THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 158BD IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED AND GROUND N O. 2 CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF ON MONEY IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE. 5. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE THE M.A . OF THE ASSESSEE BE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER IN REVENUES APPE AL IN IT(SS)A NO. 67/AHD/2008 AT PARA 6 PAGE 5, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THA T NO ADDITION OF ON M.A NOS 103 & 217/ AHD/2013 . B.P. 1-04-1990 T O 27-04- 2006 3 MONEY CAN BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF EVIDENCE T O SUPPORT THE ADDITION. WE ALSO FIND THAT C.O OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WITH RESP ECT TO THE ADDITION OF ON MONEY WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) AND THE SAME W AS DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL BY HOLDING THAT AS THE C.O WAS NOT PRESSED AND THEREFORE THE C.O OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SU BMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE AMEND PARA 8 OF THE C.O NO. 320/AHD/2013 AND THE SAME WOULD NOW READ AS UNDER;- 7. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE C.O IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRE SSED AND GROUND NO. 2 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF OUR DE CISION WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IN IT(SS)A NO. 67/AHD/2008 HEREIN ABOVE. 8. CONSEQUENTLY, PARA 13 OF THE ORDER SHOULD BE RE AD AS IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND C.O OF THE ASSES SEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THIS M.A. IS DECIDED AS STATED HE REINABOVE. 10. IN THE RESULT, M.A. NO. 103/AHD/2013 IS DISMISSED A ND M.A. NO. 217/AHD/2013 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05- 08 - 2014. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,A HMEDABAD