Rajesh Kumar Dixit, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer-4(4), Kanpur

MA 46/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1419 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 201; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.46/LKW/2016 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 03/LKW/2015] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 SHRI RAJE SH KUMAR DIXIT HOUSE NO.K - 332B KARAMPUR, YASODA NAGAR KANPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4) KANPUR T AN /PAN : AQJPS4535M (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 02 02 20 1 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09 0 2 201 8 O R D E R PER T.S.KAPOOR , A .M : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15/3/2016 IN ITA NO.03/LKW/2015 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL HAS H ELD IN PARA - 4 OF THE APPELLATE O RDER AS UNDER: 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE STAND AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSES IS SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND SALE BILLS OF J EWELLERY. THE EXPLANATION WAS ACCEPTED ALSO BY CIT(A) IN PART. WHEN SALE OF JEWELLERY BY WIFE IS SUPPORTED BY HER AFFIDAVIT AND SALE BILLS AND IT IS STAYED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE ALSO THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS AS SUCH JEWELLERY WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE M.A. NO.46/LKW/2016 PAGE 2 OF 3 ASSESSEE, IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS EXPLAINED AND NO ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, THE A.O. IS AT LIBERTY TO EXAMINE THE SOU RCE OF JEWELLERY SOLD BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE HANDS OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT SOME PART OF IT IS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED, THERE MAY BE ADDITION IN HER HANDS BUT THE PRESENT ADDITION IS BEING DELETED.' FROM THE PERU SAL OF THE ABOVE, IT WOULD BE FOUND THAT THE LAST FOUR LINES IN PARA - 4 STARTING WITH THE WORD 'HOWEVER............... THERE MAY BE ADDITION IN HER HANDS................', DO NOT ARISE OUT OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO OUT OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). 2 . THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO BE CONFINED TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE IT. IN THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT WAS NOT THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER BE AT LIBERTY TO TAKE ACTION IN THE HANDS OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING , NEITHER SUCH SUBMISSION WAS PUT FORTH BY THE REVENUE NOR THERE WAS ANY APPEAL/C.O FILED BY THE REVENUE THAT ADDI TION BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CAPTIONED FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT ESSEN TIAL FOR DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL, RATHER THE SAID FINDING WAS NOT REQUIRED AT ALL. 3 . WE HAVE PERUSED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND WE FIND THAT THE MATTER RELATES TO THE SALE OF JEWELLERY BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. THE TRIB UNAL IN ITS ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT OF THE WI FE OF THE ASSESSEE AND SALE BILLS OF JEWELLERY. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT SALE BILL OF JEWELLERY BY WIFE IS SUPPORTED BY HER AFFIDAVIT AND SALE BILLS AND ACCORDINGLY THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOUND THAT THE SOURCE OF M.A. NO.46/LKW/2016 PAGE 3 OF 3 CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS EXPLAINED AND THEREAFTER DIRECTION WAS ISSUED REGARDING WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT THIS FINDING OR DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. THEREFORE , TH E MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE A SSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 4 . IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 / 0 2 / 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - [PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY] [ T.S. KAPOOR ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 9 TH FEBR UARY , 201 8 JJ: 0502 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR