Sri. A.Subramaniam, Bangalore V. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), Bangalore

MA 48/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6156 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L V BHASKAR REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: S V RAVISHANKAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC - C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NO. 48/BANG/2018 (IN ITA NO. 10 2 6 /BANG/201 7 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 0 - 11 SHRI A. SUBRAMANIAM, NO. 159/1, 2 ND MAIN, S C ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE 560 020. PAN: BDTPS 5111D VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.V. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI L.V. BHASKAR REDDY, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 23.03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 .03.2018 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS M.P. IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT CER TAIN MISTAKES IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 11.08.2017. 2. THE FIRST CONTENTION RAISED IN THIS M.P. IS THIS THAT IN PARA 5 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT IS STATED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FU RNISHED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO REGARDING THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 1.50 LAKHS U/S. 68. THE SECON D CONTENTION RAISED IS THIS THAT GROUND NO. 6 RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT DEC IDED. 3. IN COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE ME, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT ON PAGE NOS. 26 AND 27 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS THE BANK STATEM ENT OF SMT. SIREESHA P, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2009 TO 31.03.20 10 AND IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT, THERE ARE VARIOUS DEPOSITS EVERY MONTH AND THERE IS REGULAR CASH WITHDRAWAL WHICH WAS ACCUMULATED WITH HER AND THAT IS THE SOURCE AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THIS DOCUMENT WAS NOT CONSIDERED B Y THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE, M.P. NO. 48/BANG/2018 (IN ITA NO.1026/BANG/2017) PAGE 2 OF 3 THERE IS APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. REGARDING THE SECOND CONTENTION I.E. GROUND NO. 6 RAISED BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL WAS NOT DECIDED, HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DECISION ON THIS GROUND IN THE IMP UGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. AS AGAINST THIS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. DR OF REVENUE THAT TH ERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER ON ANY ISSUE. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT ON PAGE NOS. 26 AND 27 OF PAPER BOOK IS THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF SMT. SIREESHA P FOR THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE AND IN THAT, THERE ARE VARIOUS DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT EVERY MONTH ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY AND THERE ARE VARIOUS REGULAR CASH WITHDRAWA LS ALSO. WHETHER THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ESTABLISH ED OR NOT WITH THE HELP OF THIS BANK STATEMENT IS THE MATTER TO BE DECIDED ON MERIT BUT THIS HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE PAPER BOOK AND AS PER THE LOG BOOK NOTING ALSO, IT IS SEEN THAT THE RELEVANT PAGES WER E REFERRED ALSO IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BUT IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT WAS STATED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED R EGARDING THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THIS FACTUAL POSIT ION THAT THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE PAPER BOOK AND REFERENCE WAS MADE IN COURSE OF HEARING, I T HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER ON THIS ASPECT TO THE EXTENT OF SAYING THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED. HENCE I FEEL IT PR OPER TO RECALL THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THIS ISSUE AFRESH AS PER GR OUND NO. 3 RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 6 RAISED BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL ALSO, I FIND THAT THIS GROUND WAS NOT DECIDED BY TRIBUNAL BECAUSE IN PARA 4 OF THE IM PUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT IS STATED THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO ISSUES INVOLVED AND IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT THE FIRST ISSUE IS REGARDING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN OF RS. 1.50 L AKHS AND THE SECOND ISSUE HAS BEEN STATED TO BE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 50,000/- CONF IRMED BY CIT(A) OUT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 4,97,880/-. HEN CE IT IS SEEN THAT GROUND NO. 6 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL WAS NOT DECIDED. HENCE I HOLD THAT THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER SHOULD BE RECALLED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF DECIDING GROUND NOS. 3 AND 6 AFRESH. M.P. NO. 48/BANG/2018 (IN ITA NO.1026/BANG/2017) PAGE 3 OF 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE M.P. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 23 RD MARCH, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.