Shri Bharatkumar V.Patel, Ahmedabad V. The DY.CIT., Cent.Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

MA 237/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0107 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P VERMA SR D R SRI P M PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: PPE VS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI BHARAT V. PATEL 65, VADILAL PARK SOCIETY, OPP. INDICA LAB, BAPUNAGAR, AHMEDABAD PAN: ABYPP9550E (APPELLANT) VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SRI Y.P. VERMA, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SRI P.M. PATEL, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 05-04-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-04-2013 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS ARISEN OUT OF T HE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN IT(SS)A NO. 57/AHD/2005 & C.O. NO. 90/A HD/2005 DATED 29- 10-2010. 2. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSES SEE READS AS UNDER:- M.A. NO. 237/AHD /2012 (ARISING OUT OF C.O. NO. 90/AHD/2005 & IT(SS)A NO.57/AHD/2005) BLOCK PERIOD:-01-04-1995 TO 31-03-01 & 01-04 -01 TO 13-12-2001 M.A. NO.237/AHD/2012 A.Y. BLOCK PERIOD PAGE NO BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT 2 IN THIS CASE, ORIGINAL AO WAS PASSED BY LEARNED AS SISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) AHME DABAD U/S 158BC READ WITH SECTION 143(3) DETERMINING THE TOTA L INCOME OF RS.1,18,98,567.00. BEING DISSATISFIED WITH THE SA ID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE RESPECTABLE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) I, AHMEDABAD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) I, AHMEDA BD PASSED THE ORDER DATED 24/12/2004 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL. BEING DISSATISFIED WITH THE SAID ORDER THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) AH MEDABAD FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE ITAT VIDE APPEAL NO. IT(SS)A NO. 57/AHD/2005 AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE CROSS APPEAL NO. 90 /AHD2005. IN THE CROSS APPEAL WE HAVE PRESENTED 12 GROUNDS. DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) I, ASSESSEE PRODUCED 11 FR ESH EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A. THE LEARNED CIT(A) I REJECTED THE APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A. THE HONBLE ITAT BENCH C DIRECTED THE CI T(A) I TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A AND IF REQUIRED REMAND REPORT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. DURING MEANTIME JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TR ANSFERRED FROM CIT(A) I TO CIT(A) XVI AND THE CIT(A) XVI ADJUDICAT ED ONLY 1 TO 3 GROUNDS REGARDING TAXABILITY TO RS. 1,01,04,887. H E HAS NOT ADJUDICATED REMAINING GROUNDS ESPECIALLY GROUND NO. 4 TO 6 BEFORE HIM WHICH IS ALSO A GROUND NO. 7 TO 10 OF CO BEFORE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. IN THE PARA 5.0, THE LEARNED CIT(A) XVI MENTIONED AS FOLLOWS. GROUND OF APPEAL NO 4 IS REGARDING AN ADDITION OF RS. 17,05,000/- BEING CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK, GROUND OF APPEAL NO 5 IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 76,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS FOU ND IN THE PREMISES OF VAIKUNTH COMPLEX AND GROUND OF APPEAL NO 6 IS RE GARDING ADDITION OF RS. 12,660/- U/S 158BB ON ACCOUNT OF LA TE FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR A Y 2001-02. THE ADDITIONS MADE IN R ESPECT OF THE SAID GROUNDS WERE CONFIRMED BY MY LD. PREDECESSOR AFTER ANALYZING THE FACTS OF THE CASE PRESENT THEREIN. IT IS PERTINENT TO POINT OUT THAT HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF MY LD. PREDECESSOR ONLY W.R.T. GROUND NO 1, 2, & 3 OF THE APPELLANT WHEREIN PRIMARILY MY LD PREDECESSOR HAD REFUSED TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENC ES AND CONSEQUENTLY HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED TO ADMIT THE EVIDENCES AND THEREAFTER DECIDE UPON THE MATTER. THE PRODUCT ION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WAS SQUARELY RELATED TO ADDITION OF RS. 1 ,01,04,887/- AND THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH APPELLANT S OUGHT TO ADMIT W.R.T GROUND NO. 4, 5 & 6 ABOVE. THUS THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL, IN ITS M.A. NO.237/AHD/2012 A.Y. BLOCK PERIOD PAGE NO BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT 3 ORDER DATED 29/10/2010 SUPRA, RELEVANT PORTION OF W HICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA NO. 2.1 ABOVE, HAS NOT DIRECTED RE-EXAMINATION OF ANY MATTER CONCERNING TO GROUND NO. 4, 5, & 6 ABOVE , IT IS HELD THAT NO ADJUDICATION, IN RESPECTFUL COMPLIANCE TO THE ORDER OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL, IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE AT THIS STAGE. WE MAY ALSO PRODUCE PARA 10.1 OF THE HONBLE ITAT B ENCH ORDER DATED 29/10/2010 IN THE CROSS OBJECTION, WE FOUND CONSIDERABLE FORC E IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE . LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF PAYMENT AND CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THE G ROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION AND SHORT TIME ALLOWED FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADMITTED THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES. SINCE THIS WAS NOT DONE, WE DIRECT THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, WH ICH WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES, 19 62. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) MAY FORWARD THESE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCES TO ASSESSING OFFICER, IF REQUIRES, AND C ALL THE REMAND REPORT. THE POWER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX IS CO- TERMINOUS WITH THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND, THERE FORE, IF NECESSARY, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HIMSELF EXAMINED THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. FROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL WI TH DUE RESPECT WE FEEL THAT APPEAL WAS NOT TOTALLY REMANDED TO THE FI LE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) I AND IT WAS RESTRICTED ONLY FOR GROUND NO. 1, 2 & 3 BEFORE CIT(A) I WHICH WERE ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE HONBLE IT AT VIDE GROUND NO. 1 TO 6. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS FELT THAT GROUND N O. 7 TO 12 REMAINED TO BE ADJUDICATED BY HONBLE TRIBUNAL. M.A. NO.237/AHD/2012 A.Y. BLOCK PERIOD PAGE NO BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT 4 3. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL O F THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 29/10/2010 AND IF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE IS ACCEPTED, IT WILL AMOUNT TO REVIEWING OUR ORDER. LAW IS SETTLED THAT TRIBUNAL HAS NO SUCH POWERS, THEREFORE, THE M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEERA) (D.K.TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 12 /04/2013 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , ! , '# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. $% &' / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , ( / ' ) ! , '# M.A. NO.237/AHD/2012 A.Y. BLOCK PERIOD PAGE NO BHARAT V. PATEL VS. ACIT 5 STRENGTHENED PREPARATION & DELIVERY OF ORDERS IN TH E ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 05-04-2013 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE N.A. 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 08-04-2013 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 09-04-2013 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION XXXX 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 10-04-2013 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 12-04-2013 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THIS FILE YES 9) ORDER SENT TO BENCH CLERK 12-04-2013