M/s. A.B.Talange, Ichalkaranji V. ITO, Ward 1(3), Ichalkaranji, Ichalkaranji

MA 27/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8343 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2007
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MISHRA
• Section: 44AD

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 27/PN/2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 992/PN/2002 (ASSTT.YEAR : 1995-1996) M/S. A.B. TALANGE, ICHALKARANJI 79/10, NEAR NUTUN NAGARI BANK, NIVAS, ICHALKARANJI TAL, HATKANNAGALE DIST. KOLHAPUR. .. APPELLANT PAN NO.AACFA5333N (374-A) VS. ITO WARD-1(3), ICHALKARANJI .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SRI M.K. KULKARNI RESPONDENT BY : SRI ALOK MISHRA DATE OF HEARING : 11-05-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 -05-2012 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION REQUESTS THE TRIBUNAL TO MODIFY THE ORDER SINCE SOME ERROR HAS CREPT IN T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 2. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO TH E MA SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 19-12-2006 AT PARA 7 OF T HE ORDER HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 2. THE VALUE OF THE OPENING STOCK SHOWN AS ON 01-0 4-94 WAS RS. 10,95,917/- AND SRI M.K. KULKARNI THE LEARNED AR CO ULD NOT GIVE ANY EXPLANATION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 1,92,371/- (RS. 10,95,917- RS. 9,03,136/-). IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S AS DISCUSSED IN ABOVE PARAGRAPHS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CIT(APPEALS) SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 9,03,546/-. THEREFORE, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,92,371/- HAS TO BE CONFIRMED. 2 3. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS N OT ARISING OUT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE. REFERRING TO PARA 9 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE F OLLOWING : 9. IN THE SAME WAY, WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR 01-04-1995 WERE DRAWN, ALL THE CREDIT AND DEBIT BALANCE WERE MADE O UT AND WERE TAKEN AS OPENING BALANCE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96, WHICH HAVE ALL BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THER E WAS NO REASON WHY THE DETAILS OF OPENING STOCK SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISBELIEV ED BY HIM. FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT, ITS CLAIM FOR O PENING STOCK OF RS. 10,95,917/- IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THAT EXTENT IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. . 4. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF AD MISSION OF THE AO THE CIT(A) HAD PASSED THE ORDER AND THE REVENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE IN THIS APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAIS ED BY REVENUE BEING NOT ARISING OUT OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER, THE REVENUE SHOU LD NOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ENTERT AINING THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 5. LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND REFERRING TO THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RE CORD. THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS MA IS TRYING TO REQUEST THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS PER LAW. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED T HAT THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 3 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES. WE FIND IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO MADE ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10,95,917/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED OPENING STOCK. WE FIND WHEN THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION THE REVENUE HAD TAKEN A SPECIFIC GROUND AS PER GRO UND OF APPEAL NO. 3 WHICH READS AS UNDER : ON THE FACT AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT T O HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING STOCK HAS BEEN M ADE BY THE AO IN THE ABSENCE OF MAINTENANCE OF REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS AND ALSO IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS OF STOCK, SUNDRY CREDITORS, SUNDRY DEBTORS TO JUSTIFY THE INCOME DECLARED IN TERMS OF SECTION 44AD R.W.S. 139(9)(F) OF THE ACT. 7. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIR E FACT MODIFIED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). NOW THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS MA REQUE STS THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER, WHICH IN OUR OPINION, IS NOT PERMISS IBLE UNDER THE LAW. NO OTHER APPARENT MISTAKE COULD BE POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE MA FILED BY THE ASSES SEE BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT IS DISMISSED, 7. IN THE RESULT, THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH MAY 2012 SD/- SD/- (I.C.SUDHIR) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 15 TH MAY 2012 SATISH COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE 2) THE CIT (A), KOLHAPUR. 3) THE CIT CONCERNED 4) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, A BENCH, I.T. A.T.,PUNE 5) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// PRIVATE SECRETARY, I.T.A.T., PUNE