Vinit Navratan Ranawat, Mumbai V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 1(1), , Pune

MA 290/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7382 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ TRIPATHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.290/PUN/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.262/PUN/2022) नधा रण वष / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vinit Navratan Ranawat, 33, Dagina Bazar, Mumbadevi Road, Mumbai 400 002 PAN : AANPR6221P Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Pune Applicant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee seeking recall of the order dated 31.01.2023 passed by this Tribunal in appeal bearing ITA No.262/PUN/2022 for the A.Y. 2014-15 on the ground that the petition seeking adjournment of the hearing of the case filed through e-mail was not placed before the Hon’ble Bench by the Registry. 2. We had carefully gone through the averments made in the present Miscellaneous Petition. The appellant placed a copy of the courier acknowledgement from Trackon Couriers Pvt. Limited, Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Revenue by : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date of hearing : 03.05.2024 Date of pronouncement : 06.05.2024 MA No.290/PUN/2023 2 Mumbai. From the perusal of the acknowledgment, it is not clear as to whom it was addressed to and when it was despatched. There is no proof of service of this letter. Even, during the course of hearing of the present Miscellaneous Application, the applicant could not show any sufficient reasonable cause for non-appearance when the matter was called on 23.01.2023. Thus, the applicant failed to make out a case for recall of the order. 3. There is yet another reason as to why the present Miscellaneous Application deserves to be dismissed. This Tribunal had been taking a consistent view that bogus exemption claims of capital gains/accommodation entries were denied following the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court wherein the Hon’ble High Court placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manish D. Jain 120 taxmann.com 180 (Mad) and PCIT Vs. Prabha Jain 439 ITR 304 (Mad.). The Tribunal also invoked the doctrine of fraud theory. 4. Even if the matter is recalled for whatsoever reason, the outcome of the appeal would remain same in view of above. Recall of the matter would become a mere useless formality, contributing to the docket explosion of this Tribunal. In the above circumstances, this Miscellaneous Application deserves to be dismissed. MA No.290/PUN/2023 3 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 06 th day of May, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दनांक / Dated : 06 th May, 2024 Satish आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5 . गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.