Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 1, Sangli V. Amit Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, Mumbai

MA 61/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves two miscellaneous applications (M.A.No.61 & 63/PUN./2023) filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Sangli, against Amit Kanhaiyalal Gidwani and Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, respectively. These applications were filed under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to recall or rectify a tribunal order that had quashed the reopening and re-assessments of the assessees for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. The tribunal's earlier decision was based on the finding that the reasons for reopening the assessments were vague and not supported by specific tangible material. The Revenue argued that the tribunal had erred in its initial decision, but the tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's applications and dismissed them, citing precedents that support the correction of only apparent mistakes in judicial orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137606 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: DismissedDismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2023
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., CIT vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tangible material

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No.61/PUN./2023 Arising out of I.T.A.No.1790/PUN./2019 - Assessment Year 2006-2007 The ACIT, Circle-1, Sangli vs. Amit Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, City Survey No.341, Laxmi Bungalow, Revenue Colony, South Shivajinagar, Sangli. PIN – 416416 PAN AEFPG7955P (Applicant) (Respondent) M.A.No.63/PUN./2023 Arising out of I.T.A.No.1793/PUN./2019 - Assessment Year 2005-2006 The ACIT, Circle-2, Sangli vs. Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, City Survey No.341, Laxmi Bungalow, Revenue Colony, South Shivajinagar, Sangli. PIN – 416416 PAN ADGPG5025J (Applicant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Sunil Ganoo For Assessees : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date of Hearing : 04.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023 ORDER These Revenue’s twin miscellaneous applications M.A.No.61 & 63/PUN./2023 filed u/sec.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). seek to recall/rectify the tribunal’s common order dated 30.05.2022 in the corresponding main appeals I.T.A.Nos.1790 & 1793/ PUN./ 2 M.A.Nos.61 & 63/PUN./2023 2019 quashing the corresponding reopening(s)/re- assessments for want of specific recording of reasons by the learned Assessing Officer. Heard both the parties at length through their respective learned representatives. Case files perused. 2. I first of all advert to the Revenue’s foremost MA.No.61/PUN./2023 in ITA.No.1790/PUN./2019 wherein Mr. Kulkarni has referred to reopening reasons that the same have been wrongly held to be vague ones. His attention was invited to the case records wherein the learned lower authorities have simply gone by the alleged informal sources/ local enquiries/media rather than quoting any specific tangible material so as to initiate sec.148 proceedings against the assessee. Faced with the situation, I quote [2008] 305 ITR 277 (SC) ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.; [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.; and [1993] 203 ITR 497 (Bom.) CIT vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co. holding that the purpose of sec.254(2) rectification is only to correct apparent mistakes than adopting long drawn process of roving enquiries. 3. This Revenue’s first and foremost M.A.No.61/PUN./2023 fails therefore. Same order in Revenue’s latter M.A.No.63/PUN./2023 in I.T.A.No.1793/ PUN./2019 involving identical facts. Ordered accordingly. 3 M.A.Nos.61 & 63/PUN./2023 4. Learned counsel representing both these assessees has vehemently argued that these Revenue’s miscellaneous applications happen to be barred by time wherein though there is no provision for extension of the prescribed limitation. The fact however remains that I have already rejected the Revenue’s miscellaneous application on merits and therefore, the assessee’s instant arguments stand rendered academic. 5. These Revenue’s twin M.A.Nos.61 & 63/PUN./2023 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.08.2023. Sd/- [GD [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 04 th August, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Pune. 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “SMC” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.