The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Mangaluru V. Mrs. Shamshad Begum, Puttur

MA 31/BANG/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6926 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. Nos. 28 to 34/Bang/2021 (in ITA Nos. 55 to 61/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2010-11 to 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1, Mangaluru. Vs. Smt. Shamshad Begum, Prop: M/s. Puttur Supari Industries, Kemmai, Near Vishnumurthy Temple, Puttur. PAN: AFSPB2509Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 22-10-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 07-12-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present Miscellaneous Petitions filed by revenue arises out of consolidated order passed by this Tribunal for years under consideration on 16.10.2020. 2. Following two issues have been raised by revenue in these petitions. Page 2 of 3 M.P. Nos. 28 to 34/Bang/2021 (in ITA Nos. 55 to 61/Bang/2020) Issue 1: Submits that view taken by this Tribunal that order u/s. 153A is not maintainable as there is no seized material based on which assessment could be made is a mistake apparent on record. Issue 2: Revenue submits that income from supari business is to assessed by adopting the profit rate at 2% is a mistake apparent on record. 3. It has been submitted that Issue 1 has been raised in Miscellaneous Petition pertaining to AY: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2014-15. Issue – 2 is raised in M.P. pertaining to AY : 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2015-16. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 4. Issue 1: We note that the legal plea raised by revenue in these M.Ps. does not arise out of the order passed by this Tribunal. There is a categorical observation by this Tribunal that against the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) wherein 153A proceedings was held to be not in accordance with law due to absence of seized material was not challenged by revenue. Under such circumstances, M.Ps. raised by revenue for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2014-15 does not have legs to stand. 5. Issue 2: In sofar as issue no. 2 is concerned, we note that this Tribunal has taken a decision on facts based on the order passed by coordinate bench on identical issue in another family member case of assessee. Adopting profit rate @ 2% cannot be considered to be a mistake apparent on record as it is based on the Page 3 of 3 M.P. Nos. 28 to 34/Bang/2021 (in ITA Nos. 55 to 61/Bang/2020) appreciation of facts therein. Under such circumstances, the M.Ps. raised by revenue for Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2015-16 cannot be allowed. 6. In the result, all the M.Ps. filed by revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07 th December, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 07 th December, 2021. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore