I.T.O.,Ward-2(3), Durgapur V. Somenath Kesh, Paschim Bardhaman

MA 52/KOL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application filed by the revenue under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, challenging the Tribunal's earlier decision which quashed the reassessment proceedings. The reassessment was initially based on a cash deposit of Rs.18,31,000, which the assessee explained satisfactorily during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal had earlier allowed the legal ground raised by the assessee, challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings, noting that no addition was made by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded for reopening. The revenue argued that there was an apparent error in the Tribunal's order, but the Tribunal found no merit in this argument and dismissed the application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132665 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ᭠यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No. 52/Kol/2022 I.T.A. No. 11/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Somnath Kesh Bandra Gopalpur Durgapur Paschim Bardhaman - 713212 [PAN : AMCPK6631K] Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Durgapur अपीलाथᱮ/ (Appellant) ᮧ᭜ यथᱮ/ (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03/02/2023 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 17/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This miscellaneous application at the instance of the revenue filed u/s 254(2) of the Act is against the order of this Tribunal in ITA No. 11/Kol/2020, dt. 19/07/2022. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we dispose off this miscellaneous application ex-parte on merits qua the assessee after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 3. The ld. D/R submitted that the Tribunal allowed the legal ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings observing that no addition has been made by the ld. Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded for reopening. The assessee’s case was that the addition made was for another issue which was not mentioned in the reasons recorded. The ld. D/R pointing out an apparent error stated that information was received regarding cash deposit of Rs.18,31,000/-, the M.A. No. 52/Kol/2022 I.T.A. No. 11/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Somnath Kesh 2 assessee did not file any return of income and only after the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed the ITR and also offered income of Rs.1,46,480/- u/s 44AE of the Act @ 8% of alleged cash deposit of Rs.18,31,000/-. Therefore, there is an apparent error in the order of the Hon’ble Tribunal and, therefore, this order may be recalled. 3. We have heard the ld. D/R and perused the record placed before us. 4. The legal issue raised by the assessee challenging the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act was allowed in ITA No. 11/Kol/2022. We observe that reason for reopening was the cash deposit of Rs.18,31,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has duly explained the source of cash deposit to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and the addition was made only towards unsecured loan taken during the year. So far as the reasons recorded is concerned, in our considered view, the assessee has explained the alleged cash deposit and no addition has been made for unexplained cash deposit. So far as the income offered by the assessee is concerned, the said income u/s 44AE of the Act is below taxable limit and it can be a reason for the assessee for not filing the income tax return. However, since the assessee has satisfied the Assessing Officer in respect of the source of alleged cash deposit, in our considered view, this Tribunal has rightly held that the re-assessment proceedings deserves to be quashed since the addition was not made for the reasons for which the reopening was made. We thus find no merit in this miscellaneous application filed by the revenue and the same is dismissed as per the terms indicated above. M.A. No. 52/Kol/2022 I.T.A. No. 11/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Somnath Kesh 3 5. In the result, this miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 17 th February, 2023 at Kolkata. Sd/- Sd/- (SONJOY SARMA) (DR. MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated 17/02/2023 *SC SrPs आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ)अपील (/ The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, 6. गाडᭅ फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Kolkata