Shri Bhavesh Satabhai Patel, Anand V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2, Anand

MA 48/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3946 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N C AMIN
• Keywords: Salary income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMADABAD , BEFORE: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 48/AHD/2014 (IN ITA NO.381/AHD/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 BHAVESHBHAI SATABHAI PATEL PANDAV SOCIETY, NR. DUDHANI DAIRY, AT & POST ODE, DIST: ANAND 388210 V S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ANAND PAN NO. AGZPP2683B (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) /BY ASSESSEE SHRI N. C. AMIN, A.R. /BY REVENUE SMT. SONIA KUMAR, SR.D.R. /DATE OF HEARING 04.03.2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07.03.2016 O R D E R PER : RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DIRECTED A T THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE FOR POINTING OUT APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORD ER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 14/02/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.381/AHD/2013. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HA S FILED HIS RETURN ON 06 TH JULY, 2009, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,04,640/- . THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM SALARY OF RS.29,040/- AND PROFIT AND GA INS FROM GOODS CARRIAGE U/S.44AE OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.75,600/-. THE LD. A.O. GOT INFORMATION FROM ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT WING AND CAME TO KNO W THAT A SUM OF M.A. NO.48/AHD/14 (IN ITA NO.381/AHD/13) A.Y.09-10 (BHAVESHBHAI SATABHAI PATEL VS. ITO) PAGE 2 RS.40,34,500/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE SAVINGS BANK AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, ANAND BRANCH. WHEN A.O. HAS CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE ABOUT SUCH DEPOSITS, THEN IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE A SSESSEE THAT HE HAS PURCHASED BANANAS FROM THE FELLOW FARMERS AND SUPPLIED THESE BANANAS TO PARTIES IN PUNJAB AND HARYANA. HE HAS RECEIVED COMMISSION @ 1%, HENC E, INCOME IN THIS ACTIVITY WAS OF RS.40,594/-. THE LD. A.O. HAS OBSE RVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SALE OF HIS OWN BANANAS AT RS.4,50,763/- BUT DI D NOT DISCLOSE AGRICULTURE INCOME TO THIS EFFECT IN THE RETURN. HE DID NOT DI SCLOSE THE BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, A.O. HAS CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE PROFIT IN THIS ACTIVITY BE NOT ESTIMATED AT 10% AS AGAINST COMMISS ION INCOME OF RS.1%. AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND RECORDING THE STATEMENT OF SUPPLIERS I.E. FELLOW FARMERS, HE ESTIMATED THE PROFIT @ 10% AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.4,03,350/-. 3. ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THIS ESTIMA TION TO 6%. 4. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSES SEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER A DETAILED DISCUS SION DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT @ 6%. 5. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, ASSESSEE HAS P LEADED THAT TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCE, THEREFORE, APPA RENT ERROR HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL. IT HAS BEEN PLEADED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FELLOW FARMERS HAVE DULY DEPOSED ABOUT THE COMM ISSION PAID BY THEM @ 1% TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, TRIBUNAL HAS IGNORED THESE ASPECTS. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDE R OF TRIBUNAL AND CONTENDED THAT NO ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THE T RIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION U/S.2 54(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY, WHEN THE MISTAKE, WHICH IS S OUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED, IS AN M.A. NO.48/AHD/14 (IN ITA NO.381/AHD/13) A.Y.09-10 (BHAVESHBHAI SATABHAI PATEL VS. ITO) PAGE 3 OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND A LONG TERM PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. THE SOLE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE HIS ACTIVITY OF PURCHASE AND SALES OF BANANAS, HE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE BANK ACCOUNT TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE A.O. WAS ABLE TO LAY HIS HANDS ON THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT ON THE DISCLOSURE OF DETAILS IN THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REP ORT, SUBMIT BY AIR WING. ON THE STRENGTH OF THIS INFORMATION COUPLED WITH O THER MATERIAL, LD. A.O. HAS ESTIMATED THE PROFIT IN THIS ACTIVITY @ 10%. ON RE -APPRECIATION, THIS HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 6% BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL HAS APPRAISED ITSELF WITH THE TOTAL MATERIALS AND THEREAFTER UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). TO OUR MIND, IT WAS A CONSCIOUS DECISION ON MERIT BY THE TRIBUNAL A ND NO APPARENT ERROR HAS BEEN CREPT, IN WHICH REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED U/S.2 54(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPLICATION. IT I S DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07/03/2016 SD/- SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 07/03/2016 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. !' / RESPONDENT 3. #$#%& ' ' ' / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' ' ' - / CIT (A) 5. () *' ++%& , ' ' %& , $ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. * ./ / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ' # ' ' %& , $