G Ravinder, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-3(2),Hyd, Hyderabad

MA 62/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5110 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 62/HYD/2016 (IN ITA NO. 1022/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) G. RAVINDER, HYDERABAD PAN AFTPG 0569 C VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), HYDERABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM REVENUE BY : SHRI K.J. RAO DATE OF HEARING : 16-12-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-12-2016 ORDER PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: THIS MA IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECTIFICA TION OF ALLEGED MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22-07-15. 2. IT IS STATED IN THE MA, THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS PA RTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER, BUT, WHILE DEALING WI TH AN ADDITION OF RS. 11,64,900/- WHICH WAS EXPLAINED TO HAVE BEE N RECEIVED FROM THREE PERSONS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT THE PETITIONER HAS ONLY FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS, WHICH IS INCORRECT AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER TH E FACTS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES AND FU RTHER, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE PASSPORT OF O NE OF THE CREDITORS SHRI G. RAMESH. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBU NAL ARE M.A NO.62/HYD/2016 SRI G. RAVINDER, HYDERABAED. PAGE 2 OF 3 AGAINST THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND HENCE, IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD WHICH NEEDS RECTIF ICATION. HE THEREFORE, SOUGHT RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL. 3. THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AND PRAYER SOUGHT FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MA IS NOTHING BUT A REVIEW OF THE O RDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND MATER IAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 8 OF ITS ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH CH EQUES BUT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO IDENTIFY EVEN A SINGLE CREDI TOR, LEAVE ALONE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. FURT HER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH FULLY THE GENUINENESS OF ITS CLAIM OF RECEIVING UNS ECURED LOANS. WE FIND THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO IDENTIFY CREDITORS IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION LETT ERS FROM THE RELEVANT PARTIES AND A.O. ALSO HAS RECORDED THE SAM E IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER, THE AMENDMENT OF THE AB OVE FACT IS NOT GOING TO MATERIALLY AFFECT THE FINAL OUT COM E OF THE APPEAL AS THE FINDING WITH REGARD TO ASSESSEE FAILING TO E STABLISH THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF HIS CLAIM IS A FINDING ON MERITS WHICH CANNOT BE DISTURBED AS IT WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW. THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO AM END ONLY THE FACTUAL POSITION BY SUBSTITUTING THE FALLOWING 22 TO 25 LINES OF PARA 8, AS UNDER: M.A NO.62/HYD/2016 SRI G. RAVINDER, HYDERABAED. PAGE 3 OF 3 THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, HE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHIN ESS OF THE CREDITORS AND ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH FULLY THE GE NIUNESS OF ITS CLAIM OF RECEIVING OF HIS UNSECURED LOANS. 5. ACCORDINGLY, THE MA IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (P. MADHAVI DE VI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 30 TH DECEMBER, 2016. KRK COPY TO:- 1.SHRI G. RAVINDER, 203, BLOCK38, SANSKRUTHI TOWNSH IP, POCHARAM, GHATKESAR, HYDERABAD. 2. ITO, 3(2), HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD 4) CIT-III, HYDERBAD 5)THE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYD. 6) GUARD FILE.