DCIT, Ludhiana V. Sh. Rupinderdeep Singh, Ludhiana

MA 52/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9942 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V K TULSIAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.52 /CHD/2012 (IN ITA NO.730 /CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03) THE D.C.I.T., VS. SH.RUPINDERDEEP SINGH, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, 66-G , BHAI RANDHIR SINGH NAG AR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AFIPS3714E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.K.TULSIAN DATE OF HEARING : 15.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.02.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAVE BEEN FIL ED BY THE APPLICANT-REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 19.9.2011 IN ITA NO.730/CHD/2011 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WHICH WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 2. THE PERUSAL OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION REF LECTS THAT VIDE PARA 5 THE APPLICANT-REVENUE SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER DATED 19.9.2011 MAY BE RECALLED FOR REVIEW ON THE BASIS OF FOLLOWING FA CTS: (I) WHETHER ALL THE RECEIPTS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT CAN BE TREATED AS A CONTRACT RECEIPTS PARTICULARLY WHEN, NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED EITHER AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE OR AT THE APPELLATE STAGE AND SHOULD THESE CREDITS IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT THEREFORE NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS LIABLE TO TAX. IF ABOVE VERDICT OF ITAT IS 2 ACCEPTABLE, WOULD THIS NOT LAY DOWN A VERY UNACCEPTABLE AND ILLEGAL PRINCIPLE OF ACCEPTING DEPOSITS AS CONTRACT RECEIPTS EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. (II) WHETHER ALL THE RECEIPTS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT CAN BE TREATED AS A CONTRACT RECEIPTS PARTICULARLY ON THE GROUND THAT SOME OF THE ENTRIES CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENT THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO TREAT SUCH REMAINING DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AS CONTRACT RECEIPTS. 3. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE APPLICANT-REVENUE STRES SED THAT THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS MAINTAINABLE. 4. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINT ED OUT THAT THE APPLICANT-REVENUE BY WAY OF THE PRESENT MISCELLANEO US APPLICATION WANTS REVIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS IS APPARENT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE APPLICATION ITSELF. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE APPLICANT-REVENUE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPLICATION AND THE SUBJECT IS AS UNDER: SUB:FILING OF REVIEW PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BLE I TAT IN THE CASE OF SH.RUPINDERDEEP SINGH, 66-G, BHAI RANDHIR SINGH NAGAR, LUDHIANA-ITA NO.730/CHD.2011- A.Y. 2002-03-REGARDING. 6. FROM THE CONCLUDING PARAS AS NARRATED ABOVE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE APPLICANT-REVENUE WANTS RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR REVIEW ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN FACTS. UNDER THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, THE RECTIFICATION OF ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL I S PERMISSIBLE. THE REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT PERMISSI BLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. IN V IEW THEREOF, WE FIND NO 3 MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOVED BY THE APPLICANT-REVENUE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE APPLICANT-REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH