Shri Champaklal V.Patel, Surat V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-3, Surat

MA 327/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6293 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S A BOHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL K PATEL
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B BEFORE SHRI MUKUL SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 13/5/2011 DRAFTED ON: 16/05/2011 MA NO.327/AHD/2008 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3714/AHD/2007 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1993-94 CHAMPAKALAL VALLABHABHAI PATEL 28, HAREKRISHNA MASKATI PLOTS SURAT 395 007 (ORIGINAL APPELLANT) VS. THE DCIT CIR-3 SURAT (ORIGINAL RESPONDENT) PAN/GIR NO. : (APPLICANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI MEHUL K.PATEL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.A. BOHRA, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER :- THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED ON 1 9/12/2008, THE APPLICANT HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING OBJECTION:- 5. IN FACT, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THE FIGURE OF ON MONEY RECEIPT RECEIVED IN THE A.Y. 88-89 TO 91-92 ALONG W ITH THE FIGURE OF UTILIZATION/DEPLOYMENT OF SAID ON MONEY SOWING TH E HEAD WISE INVESTMENTS/EXPENDITURE MADE/INCURRED, TO THE SETTL EMENT COMMISSION. THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY COVERED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/- TOWARDS MARRIAGE EXPENSES AS IT IS SPENT FROM THOSE RECEIPT OF ON MONEY AND ONCE THE SAID MONEY IS ALREADY TAXED, IT CANNOT BE TAXED AGAIN IN THE YEAR UNDER Q UESTION I.E. IN A.Y. 1993-94. NOW, WHETHER THE SAID EXPENSE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS ROUTINE EXPENSE OR NOT WAS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL. THE APPELLANT BELIEVES THAT IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS MA NO. 32 /AHD/2008 2008 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3714 /AHD/200 ) CHAMPAKALAL VALLABBHAI PATEL VS. DY.CIT ASST.YEAR 1993-94 - 2 - ROUTINE EXPENSES AS THE HONOURABLE SETTLEMENT COMMI SSION SPECIFIED THE ADDITIONS WHICH ARE TO BE EXCLUDED FR OM THE ASSESSMENTS SUCH AS BOGUS GIFTS, UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENTS IN LAND AND UNACCOUNTED ADVANCES AS ALSO THE NOTIONAL INTER EST EARNED FROM SUCH ADVANCE, ETC. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT THE WORD ETC ., COVERS THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/-. FURTHER, THIS CANNOT BE TERMED AS ROUTINE ADDITION AND MORE SO ON ROUTIN E ADDITIONS THERE CANNOT BE INITIATION OF PENAL PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THIS IT IS A PURE CASE OF DOUBLE TAXATION WHICH IS NOT PERM ISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW AND ONLY THE LEGITIMATE TAX CAN BE CHARGED ON THE CITIZEN AND NOT ILLEGITIMATE TAX. 2. ON HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS ON BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND NO FORCE IN THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERE D THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND APPRECIATED THE FACTUM IN ITS ENTIRETY AS IS EVIDENT FROM PARAGRAPH NOS. 3 TO 3.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND FINALLY CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 4. I HAVE HEARD LEARNED DR, GONE THROUGH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND NO INFIR MITY IN THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, AS THE AVAILABLE RECORD INDIC ATES SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS SPELT OUT ITEMS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM ADDITIONS AND REST OF THE ITEMS HAVE BEEN TERMED AS ROUTINE ADDIT IONS. SINCE MARRIAGE EXPENSES AND INTEREST ON MOTOR CAR DO NOT APPEAR IN EXCLUDED CATEGORY, LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THESE ADDITIONS, THEIR ORDERS ARE UPHELD. 3. ONCE AN ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED OF ITS MERIT AFTE R DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THEN SUCH A DECISION NEE D NOT TO BE REVIEWED U/S.254(2) OF THE I.T.ACT. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATION INTENDS TO REVIEW THE AFORESAID DECISION WHICH IS NOT PERMISS IBLE UNDER LAW. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH H AS DULY CONSIDERED MA NO. 32 /AHD/2008 2008 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3714 /AHD/200 ) CHAMPAKALAL VALLABBHAI PATEL VS. DY.CIT ASST.YEAR 1993-94 - 3 - THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION PLACED ON RECORD ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE AND ON THAT BASIS COMMENTED ON THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE SETTL EMENT COMMISSION AND ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MARRIAGE EXP ENSES IN QUESTION WERE NOT TO BE EXCLUDED AND THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE J USTIFIED IN MAKING THE SAID ADDITION. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE O N THOSE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL, HENCE, THIS PETITION IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION IS DISMISSED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27/ 5 / 2011. SD/- SD/- ( D.C.AGRWAL ) ( MUKUL KR. S HRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27 / 05 /2011 T.C. NAIR, SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-II, SURAT 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD