Shardaben Virjibhai Godhani, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(4), Now Ward-3(2)(4), Surat

MA 46/SRT/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0021 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGLA
• Assessee Lawyers: P M JAGASHETH
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM MA NOS.45 & 46/SRT/2019 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.2550/AHD/2013 & 2759/AHD/2015] ASSESSMENT YEAR: (2010-11) (VIRTUAL COURT HEARING) SMT. SHARDABEN VIRJABHAI GODHANI, 65/66, KANTARESHWAR SOCIETY, NEAR BALASHRAM, KATARGAM, SURAT-395004. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(4), SURAT NOW NEW JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(4), SURAT. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO.: ABAPG3868P (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.M. JAGASHETH - AR REVENUE BY : MS ANUPAMA SINGLA - SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 11/12/2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/12/2020 / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BY WAY OF THE CAPTIONED APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO POINT OUT THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961( IN SHORT THE ACT) HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED29.10.2018. 2. SINCE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL; THEREFORE, THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE CONTENTION AS WELL AS THE FACTS NARRATED IN MA NO.45/SRT/2019, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR DECIDING THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS EN MASSE . 3. SHRI P.M. JAGASHETH, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THERE ARE SOME MISTAKES IN WRITING A FEW FIGURES IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 29.10.2018, IN ITA NO. 2550/AHD/2013 AND 2759/AHD/2015, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 201011. THESE ARE ONLY TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKES WHICH MAY BE RECTIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL. PAGE | 2 MA NO.45 & 46/SRT/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR.2010-11 SHARDHABEN VIRJIBHAI GODHANI 4. MS ANUPAMA SINGLA, LD DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS FAIRLY AGREED THAT TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE MISTAKES APPARENT ON THE RECORD WHICH REQUIRE RECTIFICATION. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 29.10.2018 AND OTHER RELEVANT RECORDS. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS AVAILABLE BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE AFORESAID TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKES, AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, IS APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH NEEDS RECTIFICATION. CONSEQUENTLY, WE PROCEED TO RECTIFY THE SAME AS FOLLOWS. 6. QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2550/AHD/2013, A.Y. 2010-11: IN PARA NO. 7, LAST 6 LINES OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH CONTAINS THE MISTAKE APPARENT AND THE NATURE OF MISTAKES WHICH ARE SAID TO HAVE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IS AS FOLLOWS: IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS CONSIDERED AT RS.5,67,142/- (RS.4,87,305 +RS.79,837) AS AGAINST THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.9,17,170/-, ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS RESTRICTED TO RS.4,87,305/ - AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF OF RS.4,29,865/-, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. WE RECTIFY THE APPARENT MISTAKES AS FOLLOWS: QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2550/AHD/2013, A.Y. 2010-11: IN PARA NO. 7, LAST 6 LINES OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER SHOULD BE READ AS FOLLOWS: IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS CONSIDERED AT RS.5,67,142/- (RS.4,87,305 +RS.79,837) AS AGAINST THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.9,17,170/-, ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS RESTRICTED TO RS.3,50,028 /- AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF OF RS.5,67,142 /- , THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. PENALTY APPEAL UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT, IN ITA NO. 2759/AHD/2015, A.Y. 2010-11: IN PARA NO. 11, LAST 4 LINES OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH CONTAINS THE MISTAKE APPARENT AND THE NATURE OF MISTAKES WHICH ARE SAID TO HAVE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IS AS FOLLOWS: PAGE | 3 MA NO.45 & 46/SRT/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR.2010-11 SHARDHABEN VIRJIBHAI GODHANI FURTHER, AS WE HAVE ALSO REDUCED THE QUANTUM ADDITION TO RS.4,87,305/- . IN SUCH SITUATION THE PENALTY IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE RECALCULATED. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CALCULATE PENALTY ON UNEXPLAINED INCOME AT RS. 4,87,305/- ONLY. THIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE, ALLOWED PARTLY. WE RECTIFY THE APPARENT MISTAKES AS FOLLOWS: PENALTY APPEAL UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT, IN ITA NO. 2759/AHD/2015, A.Y. 2010-11: IN PARA NO. 11, LAST 4 LINES OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER SHOULD BE READ AS FOLLOWS: FURTHER, AS WE HAVE ALSO REDUCED THE QUANTUM ADDITION TO RS.3,50,028 /- . IN SUCH SITUATION THE PENALTY IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE RECALCULATED. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CALCULATE PENALTY ON UNEXPLAINED INCOME AT RS. 3,50,028 /- ONLY. THIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE, ALLOWED PARTLY. 8. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 29.10.2018, IN ITA NO.2550/AHD/2013 AND 2759/AHD/2015, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 201011 BE TREATED AS AMENDED TO THE EXTENT, AS MENTIONED ABOVE. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 21/12/2020, AS PER RULE 34 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RULE 1963. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (DR. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LWJR /SURAT / DATE: 21/12/2020 SAMANTA, PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. PR.CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, SURAT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/SR. PS/PS ITAT, SURAT