BHAVANJI S. BHADRA, V. ASST CIT (OSD-1),

MA 352/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9472 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY R PARIKH
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI .. , ! '# $% , & !, ' BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM (( !) ./ MA NO.352/MUM/2012 ( +,# - / ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.184/MUM/2010) ( &) . &) . &) . &) . / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-2002) SHRI BHAVANJI S.BHADRA 24 SOLAPUR STREET DANA BUNDER MUMBAI 400 009. PAN : AABPB4429M. THE ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD)-I, CENTRAL RANGE 7 MUMBAI. ( ! / // / APPLICANT) ) ) ) ) / VS. ( /012/ RESPONDENT) ! 3 33 3 4 4 4 4 / APPLICANT BY : SHRI SANJAY R.PARIKH /012 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MOHIT JAIN ) 3 # / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 30.11.2012 56. 3 # / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .30.11. 2012 !$ !$ !$ !$ / / / / O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL, AM : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION U/S.254(2) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE PRAYING FO R THE RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 4 TH MAY, 2011 IN ITA NO.184/MUM/2010. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED T HAT THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) BY OVERLOOKING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY DISC LOSURE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND NOTHING WAS DETECTED. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PLEADED MA NO.352/MUM/2012 SHRI BHAVANJI S.BHADRA. 2 THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER BE REVERSED AND THE PENALTY BE DELETED. IN THE OPPOSITION, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND WHICH PROVED THAT THE GIFTS WERE NOT GENUINELY RECEIVED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION, HE OFFERED THE S AID SUM FOR TAXATION. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE PEN ALTY HAS RIGHTLY BEEN UPHELD. 3. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE PENALTY IMPOS ED U/S 271(1)(C) BY CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE. NOT ONLY CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND LEADING TO PR OVE THE GIFTS AS NON-GENUINE, THE ASSESSEE ALSO ACCEPTED THE SAME AN D OFFERED THE AMOUNT BY INCLUDING IT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILE D IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 153A. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CORRECTLY TAKEN THE DECI SION. 4. IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE SCOPE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 254(2) IS LIMITED TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FR OM RECORD. IF LONG ARGUMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO SHOW THAT THE ORDER PASSE D IS INCORRECT, THAT ITSELF FALLS UNDER A DEBATABLE ISSUE. THERE IS NO DEARTH OF JUDGEMENTS ON THE POINT THAT IF TWO VIEWS EXIST ON A PARTICULA R POINT, THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECO RD. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THERE IS NO MISTAKE MUCH LESS AN Y MISTAKE MA NO.352/MUM/2012 SHRI BHAVANJI S.BHADRA. 3 APPARENT FROM RECORD WARRANTING ANY INTERFERENCE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012. !$ 3 56. 7!)8 6 3 9 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (R.S.SYAL) & ! & ! & ! & ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ! ! ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 7!) DATED : 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. DEVDAS* !$ 3 /&#'( :(.# !$ 3 /&#'( :(.# !$ 3 /&#'( :(.# !$ 3 /&#'( :(.#/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPLICANT. 2. /012 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ; () / THE CIT(A)-40, MUMBAI. 4. ; / CIT 5. (>9 /&#&) , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9? @ / GUARD FILE. !$) !$) !$) !$) / BY ORDER, 0(# /&# //TRUE COPY// + + + +/ // /A B A B A B A B ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI