The Income Tax Officer, Katra. V. Smt. Madhu Gupta, Reasi (J & K)

MA 5/ASR/2020

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Income Tax Department against Smt. Madhu Gupta, concerning an earlier Tribunal decision (ITA No. 643/Asr/2016) for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The Department sought a review of the Tribunal's decision, which had dismissed their appeal based on the principle that a statement recorded during a survey, without corroborative evidence, holds no evidentiary value. The Tribunal, referencing a Supreme Court judgment, clarified that its powers under section 254(2) are limited to rectifying apparent mistakes and do not extend to revisiting decisions on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114773 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2019
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480, CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., 133 Taxmann 41
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Misc. Application No. 05/Asr/2020 (In I.T.A. No. 643/Asr/2016) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The ITO Ward 2(5), Katra Vs. Smt. Madhu Gupta L/h of Late Sh. Subash Chander Gupta, Prop. M/s Neeraj Shawi Emporium & New Tridev Hotel, Shiv Khori, Reasi. PAN: AHJPG2341N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Joginder Singh, CA Revenue by : Shri Pardeep Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 12/06/2023 Date of Pronouncement : 15 /06/2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The present Misc. Application filed by the Department arising out ITA No. 643/Asr/2016 in respect of order passed by the Tribunal order dt. 14/06/2019 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Ld. DR submitted that the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the Department in ITA No. 643/Asr/2016 vide order dt. 14/06/2019 with the observation that the addition was made by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of the statement of the assessee recorded during the course of survey which was corroborated with the material found during the course of survey by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 wherein it was held that statement recorded during the course of survey has no evidentiary value. Thus the findings of the Tribunal holding that surrender itself is not sufficient to hold assessee guilty Misc. Application No. 05/Asr/2020 (In I.T.A. No. 643/Asr/2016) Assessment Year: 2010-11 2 unless it is corroborated by other evidence collected by the Assessing Officer and requested for the review of the Tribunal order. 3. Per contra the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Tribunal has passed an speaking order after considering the material on record and following the Apex Court judgment. He further submitted that the Tribunal has no power to review or revisit its speaking order passed on merit under section 254(2) of the Act. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.,133 Taxmann 41 clarified that while considering application under section 254(2), Tribunal was no required to revisit its original order and go in detail on merits and recall its order and its power under the provisions of Section 254(2) were only to rectify /correct any mistake apparent from the record. 4. After hearing both the sides, perusal of the impugned M.A, Tribunal order, and the case laws cited before us, we found that the Tribunal has passed the original order on merits after considering the facts on record and submissions made by the rival parties to the appeal with relevant citation. In view of the recent judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd (supra) the Tribunal has limited power under section 254(2) of the Act to rectify the apparent and primafacie mistake if any occurred and thus, Tribunal has no power to revisit or review its original order. In the present MA of the Department, the Ld. DR could not point out any apparent or primafacie mistake in the Tribunal order. Therefore, the MA of the Department requesting for review of the Tribunal order in ITA No. 643/Asr/2016 is held to be in contravention to the provision of Section 254(2) of the Act and it has no merits. Accordingly the MA of Department is rejected. 5. In the result, M.A. of the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/06/2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member Misc. Application No. 05/Asr/2020 (In I.T.A. No. 643/Asr/2016) Assessment Year: 2010-11 3 A.G Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order