ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat V. Pankaj Kumar Jain, Surat

MA 44/SRT/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8226 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGLA
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Rule of consistency
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIRTUAL HEARING) M.A.NO.44/AHD/2020 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO.188/SRT/2019) / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT. VS. SHRI PANKAJ KANWARLAL JAIN, 302, SANTOK DIAMOND, SOMNATH MAHADEVI, SHERI, HARIPURA, SURAT [PAN: ACZPT 5175 G] / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY SHRI RASESH SHAH CA /REVENUE BY SMT. ANUPAMA SINGLA SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING: 12.03.2021 / P RONOUNCEMENT ON: 12.03.2021 /O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS (MA) IS FILED BY REVENUE FOR SEEKING RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2019 IN ITA NO.188/SRT/2019 FOR A.Y. 2011-12. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF PANKAJ KANWARLAL JAIN (HUF) VS ITO IN ITA NO. 269/SRT/2017 (A.Y. 2013-14). THE TRIBUNAL WRONGLY RELIED ON THE DECISION IN PANKAJ KANWARLAL JAIN (HUF) VS ITO (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS MADE TRANSACTION WITH RAJENDRA JAIN & MA NO. 44/SRT/2020 IN ITA NO. 188/SRT/2019 SHRI PANKAJ KANWARLAL JAIN (A.Y. 2011-12) 2 SANJAY JAIN GROUP, HOWEVER, IN PANKAJ KANWARLAL JAIN (HUF) VS ITO (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE MADE BOGUS TRANSACTION WITH BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP, THUS, THE FINDING OF TRIBUNAL IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS MISTAKE APPARENT. THE LD. DR FOR REVENUE PRAYED FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER FOR ADJUDICATION IT AFRESH. 2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE RATIO OF THE DECISION IN PANKAJ KANWARLAL JAIN (HUF) VS ITO (SUPRA). THE REVENUE IS SEEKING THE REVIEW OF THE ORDER UNDER THE GARB OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2019. WE HAVE SEEN THAT IN THE CASE OF PANKAJ KANWARLAL JAIN (HUF) VS ITO (SUPRA), THE BENCH DELETED THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES (PURCHASES SHOWN FROM THE ALLEGED HAWALA DEALER BHANWARLAL JAIN). FURTHER, IN CASE OF PRESENT ASSESSEE, THE RATIO DESCENDI WAS FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE TO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY. HOWEVER, FACTS REMAINS THE SAME THAT ADDITIONS IN BOTH THE CASES RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES. THUS, IN OUR VIEW MA NO. 44/SRT/2020 IN ITA NO. 188/SRT/2019 SHRI PANKAJ KANWARLAL JAIN (A.Y. 2011-12) 3 THE REVENUE IS SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER, WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 4. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER ANNOUNCED ON 12 TH MARCH 2021 BY PLACING THE RESULT ON THE NOTICE BOARD. SD/- SD/- (DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( /JUDICIAL MEMBER) / SURAT, DATED : 12 TH MARCH 12, 2021 C OPY OF ORDER SENT TO- ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SURAT