Shri Umesh Krishnani, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(3), Surat

MA 38/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7903 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI D. K. TYAGI, JM AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALAN KAMONY, AM) M. A. NO.38/AHD/2010 ((IN ITA NO.439/AHD/2007 AY: 2003-04) SRI UMESH KRISHNANI, PROP. M/S. SWAMI ENTERPRISES, 2002, JASH TEXTILE MARKET, RING ROAD, SURAT PA NO. ABQPK 8062 R VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (3) , SURAT (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY URVASHI SHODHAN, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 30-03-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:20-04-2012 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY : THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RECALLING FOR RECTIFICATIO N OF MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.439/AHD/2007 DATED 16-12-2009 BEING THAT ON PAGE 3 PARA 5 OF THE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL ADJUDICATED THE GROUND RAISE D BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.7,25,000/- U /S 68 OF THE IT ACT AS UNDER: 'WE CONSIDERED THE MATTER IN DETAIL. THE FACTS OF T HIS ISSUE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ARGUED BY T HE PARTIES BEFORE US IN THE LIGHT OF PLETHORA OF CASE LAWS. ONE OF TH E CREDITORS INVOLVED IN THE CASE IS MRS. SUNITA KRISHNANI. HER CASE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2001 - 02 BY ITAT, AHMEDABAD 'D' BENCH. MRS. SUNITA KRISHNANI FURNISHED HER P.A. MA NO.38/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.439/AHD/2007 AY: 2003-04 SHRI UMESH KRISHNANI VS ITO, W-2(3), SURAT 2 NUMBER, CONFIRMATION OF ADVANCING MONEY, COMPUTATIO N OF HER INCOME TO ESTABLISH THE RESOURCEFULNESS AND BALANCE SHEET ETC. IN SPITE OF ALL THESE TECHNICAL DETAILS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 THAT THE CREDIT STATED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY MRS. SUNITA KRISHNANI WAS NOT EXPLAINED. THE ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. MRS. SUNITA KRISHNANI APPEARED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT AS WELL, AGAINST A CREDIT OF RS 75,000/- . AS HER CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN EXAMINED AND CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT STANDI NG IN THE NAME OF MRS. SUNITA KRISHNANI NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED AS ADDI TION WITHOUT MUCH DISCUSSION AND DETAILS.' THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT CAN BE OBS ERVED FROM THE PARAGRAPHS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE CASH CREDIT IN THE NAME OF MRS. SUNITA KRISHNAN I ON THE BASIS OF CONFIRMATION OF THE SAME BY THE EARLIER ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL DEALIN G WITH CASH CREDIT IN THE NAME OF MR. SUNITA KRISHNANI FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2001- 02 CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT( A) OF THE ALLEGED CREDITOR DUE TO THE CREDITOR NOT BEING ASSESSED TO TAX. WHEREAS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION P.A. NUMBER, CONFIRMATION, BALANCE SHEET AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE CREDITORS HAS BEEN FURNISHED AND TAKEN NOTE OF BY THE BENCH. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, TH E LEARNED AR ARGUED THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR APPARENT ON RECORD A ND THE SAME REQUIRES TO BE RECTIFIED. 2. THE NEXT SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AR IN HER WRI TTEN SUBMISSION IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF OTHER 5 CREDITORS TOOK NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FU RNISHED P. A. NUMBER, CONFIRMATION LETTERS, COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ETC., IN SPITE OF THE SAME, THE ADD ITIONS WERE MA NO.38/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.439/AHD/2007 AY: 2003-04 SHRI UMESH KRISHNANI VS ITO, W-2(3), SURAT 3 CONFIRMED. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: ON AN OVERALL VIEW OF THE SITUATION AND IN THE LIG HT OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS IN TH E CASE OF MRS. SUNITA KRISHNANI, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO CONVINCE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES REGARDING THE RESOURCEFULNESS AVA ILABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE CREDITORS. THEREFORE WE FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE CREDITS A UNEXPLAINED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.7, 25, OO0/-. 2.1 THE LEARNED AR ARGUED THAT SINCE THE ARGUMENTS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ESCAPED T HE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH, THERE IS MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH RE QUIRES TO BE RECTIFIED. 3. THE LEARNED DR OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR AND STOUTLY ARGUED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS AND HAVING TAKEN CONSCIOUS DECISION ANY SUBSEQUENT ALTE RNATION OR MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WOULD AMO UNT TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVIS IONS OF THE IT ACT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 16-12-2009 SUPRA IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2003-04 AND WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDIN G THE ISSUE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CONSIDERED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2001-02, AND AL SO FROM THE MATERIALS PRODUCED FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS GIVEN A MA NO.38/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.439/AHD/2007 AY: 2003-04 SHRI UMESH KRISHNANI VS ITO, W-2(3), SURAT 4 SPECIFIC FINDING THAT WHATEVER DOCUMENTS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONVINCING TO THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR TO THE T RIBUNAL REGARDING THE RESOURCEFULNESS AVAILABLE WITH THE CREDITORS TO ADV ANCE ANY FUNDS TO THE ASSESSEE. PARA FIVE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L CONTAINS A DETAILED DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE. HENCE, THERE IS N O MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ARGUED BY THE LEARNED AR. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE AS SESSEE RESULTING IN MERE WASTE OF TIME AND RESOURCES. ACCORDINGLY, WE D ISMISS THE SAME RESTRAINING OURSELVES FROM ORDERING COST. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20-04-2012. SD/- SD/- (D.K. TYAGI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/- -- - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD