Mrs. Ibrahim Kaleel, Mangaluru V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

MA 217/BANG/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6086 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARITHIVEL
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

MP Nos.217 & 218/Bang/2023 Mr. Ibrahim Khaleel, Mangaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER MP Nos.217 & 218/Bang/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos.734 & 735/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Mr. Ibrahim Khaleel 2 nd Cross Road, Manaar Badria Kandak Mangaluru 575001 PAN NO : BLHPK9828F Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax Circle-2 Mangaluru APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Parithivel, D.R. Date of Hearing : 27.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessee seeking rectification of order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.734 & 735/Bang/2022 dated 16.6.2023. 2. The ld. A.R. submitted that there was a common ground in both these appeals with regard to addition of Rs.50.60 lakhs u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] in both years i.e. in assessment year 2017-18 on substantive basis and in assessment year 2018-19 on protective basis. The Tribunal accordingly decided this issue only in AY 2018-19 and not in AY 2017-18. Hence, there is a mistake in the order of the Tribunal cited (supra). 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the assessee has raised the similar ground in both these appeals as follows: MP Nos.217 & 218/Bang/2023 Mr. Ibrahim Khaleel, Mangaluru Page 2 of 3 “1. Ground No.3: The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji is not justified in law in upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer being seized cash to the extent of Rs.50,60,000 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3.1 In our opinion, the Tribunal properly recorded the facts of the issue in ITA No.735/Bang/2022 in assessment year 2018-19 in para 9.3 to 9.5 of its order and given findings in para 9.6. In our opinion, these facts and findings to be considered as relating to assessment year 2017-18 where the addition is made on substantive basis. Accordingly, the ld. AO has to carry out necessary enquiry as directed in para 9.6 of earlier order in assessment year 2017-18 in ITA No.734/Bang/2022 and not in AY 2018-19. 3.2 The ground relating to addition of Rs.50.60 lakhs on protective basis in assessment year 2018-19 in ITA No.735/Bang/2022 is concerned, it has become infructuous in view of remitting this issue on substantive basis in assessment year 2017-18 to the file of A.O. for fresh consideration. Accordingly, this ground in ITA No.734/Bang/2022 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and this ground in ITA No.735/Bang/2022 is dismissed. 4. In the result, MP No.217/Bang/2023 arising out of ITA No.734/Bang/2022 and the MP No.218/Bang/2023 arising out of ITA No.735/Bang/2022 are allowed. 5. Thus, the final result in ITA No.734/Bang/2022 for the AY 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and in ITA No.735/Bang/2022 for the AY 2018-19 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27 th Oct, 2023 Sd/- (Beena Pillai) Judicial Member Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 27 th Oct, 2023. VG/SPS MP Nos.217 & 218/Bang/2023 Mr. Ibrahim Khaleel, Mangaluru Page 3 of 3 Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(Judicial) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.