M.N. Navale (Bigger HUF), Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax,

MA 27/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5143 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E , , !'!! # , $ % BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM '!'! !& / MA NOS. 25 & 26/PN/2016 (ARISING OUT OF WTA NOS. 06 & 07/PN/2014) $& ' !(' / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 TO 2007-08 M.N. NAVALE (INDIVIDUAL), SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, CAMPUS, VADGAON (BK), PUNE-411041 PAN : AAIPN0909R ....... / APPELLANT )& / V/S. DY. CWT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE / RESPONDENT '!'! !& / MA NOS. 27, 28, 29 & 30/PN/2016 (ARISING OUT OF WTA NOS. 08, 09, 10 & 11/PN/2014) $& ' !(' / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 TO 2003-04 & 2007-08 M.N. NAVALE (BIGGER HUF), SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, CAMPUS, VADGAON (BK), PUNE-411041 PAN : AAEHN1259C ....... / APPELLANT )& / V/S. DY. CWT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DOSHI REVENUE BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI / DATE OF HEARING : 25-11-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-12-2016 2 MA NOS. 25 TO 30/PN/2016 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESS EE U/S. 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL D ATED 14-01-2016 PASSED IN WEALTH TAX APPEALS NOS. 06 TO 11/P N/2014. THE CONTENTS OF THE MA NO. 25/PN/2016 IN WTA NO. 06/PN/ 2014 FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE AS UNDER : THE APPLICANT RECEIVED THE ORDER OF HON'BLE TRIBUNA L ON 07.04.2016. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER, IN THE HUMBLE AND CONSI DERED OPINION OF THE APPLICANT, THERE HAS OCCURRED SOME FACTUAL ERRORS R ECTIFIABLE UNDER U/S. 254 OF THE 1. T. ACT, 1961. 1. IN THESE APPEALS THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IS WH ETHER CERTAIN ASSETS BELONGING TO M.N. NAVALE (BIGGER HUF) AND NARRATED IN PARA 2 OF THE ORDER CAN BE CONSIDERED AS BELONGING TO THE APPLICA NT AND INCLUDABLE IN HIS NET WEALTH. THE SUBMISSION WAS MADE AND THE FACTUAL ASPECT WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE HON'BLE BENCH TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT - A) ALL THESE ASSETS ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE PARTI TION DECREE AWARDED BY CIVIL COURT, PANDHARPUR. BASED ON THIS PARTITION DECREE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 149/PN /2010 DATED 30.03.2012 HAS TAKEN A CONSIDERED VIEW THAT T HIS PARTITION DECREE HAS THE BINDING FORCE ON INCOME TA X AUTHORITIES AS IT IS SACROSANCT. THE HON'BLE TRIBUN AL SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT THIS PARTITION DECREE IS BIN DING ON INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO THE EXTENT OF QUANTIFICAT ION OF HUF'S PROPERTY PROVED BY HON'BLE CIVIL COURT JUDGE, PANDHARPUR. SINCE THIS HON'BLE CIVIL JUDGE COURT, PANDHARPUR HAS AWARDED THE PARTITION DECREE HOLDING UNREBUTTABLY THAT ALL THE PROPERTIES MENTIONED THER EIN BELONG TO THE SAID M. N. NAVALE (BIGGER HUF), ITS QUANTIFICATION STANDS PROVED BY THE CIVIL COURT. TH E SAID 3 MA NOS. 25 TO 30/PN/2016 CIVIL COURT, PANDHARPUR HAS NOWHERE DOUBTED ABOUT T HE QUANTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTIES MENTIONED THEREIN. THE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE QUANTIFICATION OF PROPERTIE S AS PROVED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS MENTIONED IN THE PAR TITION DECREE IS BINDING ON I.T. AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE IT STANDS PROVED THAT EVEN THOSE PROPERTIES WHICH ARE THE SUB JECT MATTER OF THESE 2 APPEALS AND DULY INCORPORATED IN THE PARTITION DECREE HAVE BEEN HELD AS BELONGING TO M. N. NAVALE (BIGGER HUF). B) THE APPLICANT ALSO DREW THE ATTENTION OF HON'BLE BENCH TO THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS FILED FOR THE A YS 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07. COPIES OF THESE RETURNS HAVE BEEN DULY FIL ED ON RECORD. THESE RETURNS BEING THE VALID RETURNS AND D ULY PROCESSED U/S 16(1) AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THE WEALTH TAX OFFICER THOUGH INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2007-08 BY ISSUING THE NOTICES U/S 17 OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 HAS NOT DISTURBED THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS FILED FOR ASSESSME NT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 AND DULY PROCESSED U/S 16(1) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957. THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATED THAT THESE VERY ASSETS A RE DULY INCORPORATED IN THESE WEALTH TAX RETURN AND PR OVED THAT THESE ASSETS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE WEALTH TAX OFFICER AS BELONGING TO M. N. NAVALE (BI GGER HUF). THEREFORE THESE ASSETS NOW FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 & 2007-08 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BELONGING TO THE APPLICANT M. N. NAVALE (INDIVIDUAL). C) NEITHER THE WTO NOR THE LD. CWT(A) HAS EVEN PROV ED BY BRINGING ON RECORD ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO TH E EFFECT THAT THESE ASSETS BELONG TO THE APPLICANT M. N. NAV ALE (INDIVIDUAL) ONLY. IN FACT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION W HATSOEVER TO JUSTIFY THE SAID VIEW EITHER IN THE WEALTH TAX A SSESSMENT ORDER OR THE ORDERS PASSED BY CWT(A). D) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSUMING BUT WITHOUT ADMIT TING THE SAID M. N. NAVALE (BIGGER HUF) HAS INADEQUATE SOURC E FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO PROVE THE ASSETS ACQUIRED, B Y 4 MA NOS. 25 TO 30/PN/2016 NECESSARY IMPLICATION THE COST OF THOSE ASSETS TO T HE EXTENT NOT COVERED BY THE SOURCE I.E. AGRICULTURAL INCOME CAN ONLY BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF M. N. NAVALE (BIGGER HU F) THE OWNERSHIP OF WHOSE IS UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE CIVIL C OURT, PANDHARPUR. BY ANY STANDARD WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD THE SAID ASSETS CANNOT BE INCLUD ED IN THE HANDS OF APPLICANT M. N. NAVALE (INDIVIDUAL). E) ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE ORDER OF CWT(A) PASSED IN THE APPEAL OF M. N. NAVALE (BIGGER HUF) FOR ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2007-08. THE RELEVANT PORT ION OF THE ORDER OF CWT(A) IS REPRODUCED ON PAGE NO. 9, PA RA 12 IN THE COMPOSITE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE BENCH ON THE APPEAL FILED BY APPLICANT M. N. NAVALE (INDIVIDUAL) AND M. N. NAVALE (BIGGER HUF). LD CWT(A) HAS HELD AS UNDER 'IF AS A RESULT OF THE EXERCISE, THE SOURCES OF THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTIES ARE ESTABLISHED IN THE HANDS OF APPEL LANT HUF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO TREAT THE ASSESSMENTS MADE AS SUBSTANTIVE, OTHERWISE TO THE E XTENT THE AVAILABILITY IN THE HANDS OF HUF IS NOT ESTABLI SHED, TO THAT EXTENT, THE PROPERTIES WILL STAND EXCLUDED (R OM THE APPELLANT'S NET WEALTH ' POINT TO BE NOTED THE CWT(A) NOWHERE STATES MUCH LE SS HOLDS THAT TO THE EXTENT THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THE HANDS OF HUF TO THAT EXTENT THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE NET WEALTH OF M. N. NAVALE (INDIVIDUAL). THE LD CWT(A) ONLY STATES THAT SAID PROPERTY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE NET WEALTH OF M N NAVALE (BIGGER HUF). THE ABOVE FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDE RED NOR ANY VALID REASONING OR JUSTIFICATION AS TO WHY ON FAILU RE OF M. N. NAVALE (BIGGER HUF) TO PROVE THE SOURCE FOR ACQUISI TION OF THE ASSETS, THESE PROPERTIES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS ON LY BELONGING TO THE APPLICANT M. N. NAVALE (INDIVIDUAL). THE VIE W TAKEN IS ALSO NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF THE BENCH IN IT A NO. 149/PN/2010 DATED 30.03.2012. 5 MA NOS. 25 TO 30/PN/2016 THE HON'BLE BENCH IN PARA 5, PAGE 5 HAS MADE REFERE NCE TO THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO ABOVE AND NOTED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT ALL THESE ASSETS A RE INCORPORATED IN THE LIST OF THE ASSETS IN THE PARTITION DECREE A WARDED BY THE CIVIL COURT, PANDHARPUR. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HOWEV ER FURTHER OBSERVES THAT THE SAID PARTITION DECREE HAS NOT BEE N PLACED BEFORE IT BY EITHER OF THE SIDE. IN FACT, THE PARTITION DE CREE IS DULY AND ENTIRELY CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE BENCH IN ITS ORD ER IN ITA NO.149/PN/2010 DATED 30.03.2012. IN FACT THE SAID ORDER OF TRIBUNAL WAS BASED ON THE SAID PARTITION DECREE ONL Y. 2. THE MA APPLICATION FEES OF RS. 100 HAVE BEEN DUL Y PAID. CHALLAN ENCLOSED. THE APPLICANT MOST RESPECTFULLY BEGS TO STATE THAT NON CONSIDERATION OF THESE FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS HAS GRAV ELY AFFECTED THE APPLICANT SHRI M N NAVALE, INDIVIDUAL. THE APPL ICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS BEING THE ERROR, THE SAME IS RECTIFIABLE U/S 254 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. SIMILAR MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED IN OTHER WEALTH TAX APPEALS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE IN THE OR DER OF TRIBUNAL COMMON FOR ALL THE APPEALS. 2. SHRI S.N. DOSHI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF COM MISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (APPEALS) REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE O F ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 149/PN/2010 DECIDED ON 30- 03-2012 ACCEPTING THE EXISTENCE OF M.N. NAVALE (BIGGER HUF). 3. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT IONS FILED 6 MA NOS. 25 TO 30/PN/2016 ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THER E IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL. THUS, THE MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE RIVAL SIDES . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FOR RECTIFICATION O F THE MISTAKE IN ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 14-01-2016 VIDE WHICH T HE WTA NOS. 06 TO 11/PN/2014 WERE DECIDED. THE DETAILED APPLICAT IONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF TRIB UNAL DATED 14- 01-2016 WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED SHOWS THAT THE T RIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L IN ITA NO. 149/PN/2010 DECIDED ON 30-03-2012. THE EXISTENCE OF M.N . NAVALE (BIGGER HUF) HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (APPEALS). THUS, THERE IS NO DISP UTE OVER THE EXISTENCE OF M.N. NAVALE (BIGGER HUF). THE ONLY ISSUE FOR WHICH THE MATTER HAS BEEN REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS TO ASCERTAIN AND IDENTIFY THE ASSETS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NET WEALTH OF M.N. NAVALE (INDIVIDUAL) AND M.N. NAVALE (BIGGER HUF). THE ASSESS EE IS AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE PARTITION DECREE AWARDED BY CIVIL C OURT, PANDHARPUR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY ERR OR MUCH LESS ANY APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE ARRAY OF MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATIONS FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE IS INFACT SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. REVIEW OF ORDER IS NOT PE RMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254 OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS O F THE ACT DOES NOT PERMIT THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. WE DO NOT FIND ANY 7 MA NOS. 25 TO 30/PN/2016 MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO POINT ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF T RIBUNAL WARRANTING RECTIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 30 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 30 TH DECEMBER, 2016 RK *+,$-.'/'(- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' ( () / THE CWT(A)-CENTRAL, PUNE 4. ' ( / THE CWT, CENTRAL, PUNE 5. !+, %%-' , -' , . /01 , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. , 2 34 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #5 / BY ORDER, %6 -1 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, -' , / ITAT, PUNE