Shri Nandkumar M. Kulkarni, Pune V. ITO, Wd 3(4), Pune, Pune

MA 55/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6473 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H C LEUVA
• Assessee Lawyers: G Y LIMAYE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH: PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO. AM M.A. NO. 55/PN/2011 ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 799/PN/2004 A.Y. 1995-96 NANDKUMAR M. KULKARNI A-16 PINNAC GARDEN, KOTHRUD, PUNE-411 029 PAN ACDPK 5386 M : APPLICANT VS. I.T.O. WARD 3(4) PUNE. :RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI SUNIL GANOO AND SHRI G.Y. LIMAYE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI H.C. LEUVA ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 799/PN/200 4 FOR A.Y. 1995-96 DATED 29-12-2006. 2. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT DURING THE COU RSE OF SURVEY ACTION ON BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, A COMPROMISE WAS ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT AND IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE COMPROMISE THE ORIGINAL DECLARATION OF RS. 7.5 LAKHS GIVEN AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ACTION WAS REDUCED TO RS. 3.00 LAKHS AND RS. 2.00 L AKHS IN THE M.A. 55/PN/2010 NANDKUMAR M KULKARNI A.Y. 1995-96 - 2 - CASE OF WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT OF REDUCTIO N IN DECLARATION IS CLEARLY BORNE OUT VIDE ANSWER TO Q. NO. 7 OF THE STATEMENT ON OATH OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED ON 21-1- 2007 WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF ERSTWHILE JUDICIAL MEMBER WHEREBY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITY HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE ASSURED TO THE ASSESSEE NOT TO REOP EN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENTS. BUT ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE , THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN HONOURED WITH. THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIME D TO HAVE FILED CERTAIN DETAILS AS PER DIRECTIONS OF ERSTWHIL E JUDICIAL MEMBER. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ABOVE SAID ARGUMENTS AS WELL AS SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF L AW RAISED WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ERSTWHILE JUDICIAL MEMBE R WHICH IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS WHICH NEEDS TO BE C ORRECTED. 3. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE H IS CLAIM WITH REGARDS TO THE SO-CALLED DIRECTIONS OF ERSTWHI LE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND COMPLIANCE THEREOF ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE AT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. IT IS THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM MADE BY HIM BEFORE US. IN A BSENCE OF THE SAME, LOOKING INTO THE MERITS OF THE DECISION O F THE TRIBUNAL WILL AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF ITS DECISION WHIC H IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT. M.A. 55/PN/2010 NANDKUMAR M KULKARNI A.Y. 1995-96 - 3 - 4. IN FACT IN THE GARB OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITI ON, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20TH APRIL 2011. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 20 TH APRIL 2011. ANKAM COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEES 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT(A) II PUNE 4. CIT - II PUNE 5. ITAT, D.R. PUNE BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE.