ACIT, CHENNAI V. Lakshmi Bangaru, CHENNAI

MA 305/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5393 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: R M NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER && / M.P. NO.305/MDS/2016 (IN I.T.A. NO.2068/MDS/2016) ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. SMT. LAKSHMI BANGARU, NO.AH-102, 4 TH LANE, 7 TH MAIN ROAD, ANNANAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 040. PAN : AABPL 9966 H (*+' /PETITIONER) (*,+-/ RESPONDENT) *+' / 0 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT *,+- / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.M. NARAYANAN, CA 1 / 2$ / DATE OF HEARING : 03.02.2017 3!( / 2$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.02.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF T HIS TRIBUNAL DATED 23.06.2016. 2 M.P. NO.305/MDS/16 2. SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THE QUANTUM APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SUBSEQUENTLY, ACCOR DING TO THE LD. D.R., BY A RECTIFICATION ORDER, THE CIT(APPEALS) AL LOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 85,35,000/-. AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PPEAL. HOWEVER, AGAINST RECTIFICATION ORDER IN WHICH RELIEF WAS GRA NTED, THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE CONSIDERING TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, FOUND THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT KNO WN HOW THE REVENUE CLAIMS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE AD DITION. IN FACT, THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE RECTIF ICATION ORDER, WHICH IS A SEPARATE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI R.M. NARAYANAN, THE LD. RE PRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT AS RIGHTLY SUBMITT ED BY THE LD. D.R., EVEN THOUGH THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE AD DITION OF ` 85,35,000/- IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER, SUBSEQUENTLY, BY A RECTIFICATION ORDER, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS DELETED. AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPE AL. HOWEVER, 3 M.P. NO.305/MDS/16 AGAINST THE RECTIFICATION ORDER, THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT, THERE IS AN E RROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, AFTER REFERRING TO THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), IN THE RECTIFICATION ORDER, THE LD. R EPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) CALLED FOR REMAND R EPORT AND IN FACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF FOUND THAT THE ADDITI ON TO THE EXTENT OF ` 85,35,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF ` 1,17,47,615/- CAN BE DELETED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT N OW CLAIM THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT CORRECT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. AND THE LD. REPRESENTATIV E FOR THE ASSESSEE, THERE ARE TWO APPEALS, ONE BY REVENUE AND ANOTHER BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AGAINST TH E ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND THE REVENUE FILED AGAINST R ECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). IN THE RECTIFICATION O RDER, THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 85,35,000/- ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THER EFORE, THE OBSERVATION OF THIS TRIBUNAL THAT IT IS NOT KNOWN H OW THE REVENUE CLAIMS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITI ON TO THE EXTENT OF ` 85,35,000/- IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS ON RECORD. TO THAT EXTENT 4 M.P. NO.305/MDS/16 THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. A CCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 23.06.2016 IS RECTIFIED AS F OLLOWS:- PARAGRAPHS 44 AND 45 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER ON PAG ES 37 TO 40 ARE DELETED. INSTEAD THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE I NSERTED:- 44. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND GOLD JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES A ND DIAMONDS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM HE R HUSBAND SHRI G. BANGARU, WHICH DISCLOSES THAT THE VALUE OF GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF 4260.300 G MS, 7.850 KGS OF SILVER AND 67.90 CARATS OF DIAMOND WER E ADMITTED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THEREFORE, THE EXCESS JEWELLERY, SILVER ARTICLES AN D DIAMONDS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,17,47,615/- WAS ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. SUBSEQUENTLY, T HE CIT(APPEALS), BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DELETED THE ADDITION. IN FACT, IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSES SING 5 M.P. NO.305/MDS/16 OFFICER FOUND THAT ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 85,35,000/- OUT OF ` 1,17,47,615/- MAY BE DELETED. 45. FROM THE ABOVE REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THERE CANNOT B E ANY ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 TO THE EXTENT OF ` 85,35,000/-. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS NO OBJECTION, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) CANNOT CONFIRM THE ADDITION. IN FACT, BY WAY OF RECTIFICA TION ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 85,35,000/-. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUT HORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) RECTIFYING THE ORIGINAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT IS CONFIRMED. 6. ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 23.06.2016 IS RECTI FIED AS ABOVE. OTHER PART OF THE ORDER SHALL REMAIN AS SUCH. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 6 M.P. NO.305/MDS/16 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2017. KRI. / *26& 7&(2 /COPY TO: 1. *+' / PETITIONER 2. *,+- /RESPONDENT 3. 1 82 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 82 /CIT 5. &9 *2 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.