MUTHA PARASRAM DHANAJI AND COMPANY, KALYAN V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, THANE

MA 71/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6636 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: H N MTOWALA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'J' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NOS. 69 TO 72/MUM/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 1495, 4564, 4565, 1496/MUM /2010) (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 TO 2007-08) M/S. MUTHA PARASRAM DHANAJI & CO. NARAYANWADI, STATION ROAD KALYAN (W) VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 PAWAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE 2ND FLOOR, EDULJI ROAD CHARIA, THANE(W) PAN AAFFM5521R APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI H.N. MTOWALA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RAJAT MITTAL DATE OF HEARING: 23.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02.05.2018 O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA, AM THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AROSE OUT OF THE O RDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31 ST DECEMBER, 2014 IN RESPECT OF ITA NOS. 1495, 4564, 4565, 1496/MUM/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-08. 2. THROUGH THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS THE ASSESS EE HAS POINTED OUT THE ALLEGED MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED IN RESPECT OF ALL THE FOUR YEARS RANGES FROM 1 TO 17 PAGES, WHEREIN VARIOUS ARGUMENTATIVE GROUND S HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MI SCELLANEOUS PETITIONS AS WELL AS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED A.R. AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.12.2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLEN GED THAT THE JURISDICTION ACQUIRED UNDER SECTION 153C WAS NOT CO RRECT. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS VERY ELABORATELY DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE AT PARAS 6 TO 16 OF ITS ORDER. THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE CONCLUSI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL. MA NOS. 69 TO 72/MUM/2017 M/S. MUTHA PARASRAM DHANAJI & CO 2 3. THE NEXT GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO OPPO RTUNITY OF HEARING IN RESPECT OF GROUNDS ON MERIT. FROM THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE ON MERIT HAS BEEN DEALT WITH AT PARAS 19 & 26. FROM VARIOUS PARAS OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WE OBSERVE THAT EACH AN D EVERY MERIT OF THE ISSUE WAS DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL THREADBARE AND THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE TRIBUNAL. UN DER SECTION 254(2) THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT CHANGE ITS CONCLUSION AND ITS POWER IS CONFINED TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, PRESENTLY WHICH I S NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. NEXT ISSUE PERTAINS TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTER EST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATI NG MATERIALS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR UPHOLDING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF I NTEREST. 5. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO AND ON ACCOUNT OF UNA CCOUNTED STOCK. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAS 21 TO 29 OF ITS ORDER. THE CONCLUSION SO ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE AT OUR PART SINCE THERE IS NO MISTAKE, MUCH LESS THAN AN APPARENT MISTAKE, IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBUNAL . 6. NEXT GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO ENHANCEM ENT OF INCOME BY ` 10,05,568/- ON ACCOUNT OF NOTING FOUND ON SEIZED PA PERS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND DISPOSED OFF IN P ARAS 32 & 33 OF THE ORDER. THERE IS NO MISTAKE, MUCH LESS THAN AN APPAR ENT MISTAKE, IN THE CONCLUSION SO ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL. 7. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE MATTER WE HEREBY MENTION TH AT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RAN GED FROM PAGES 1 TO 17 WHICH ITSELF INDICATES THAT WHATEVER HAS POINTED OU T BY THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION OF CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT B Y THE TRIBUNAL AND IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE, WHICH DOES NOT FALL UNDER SECTION 254(2). 8. IN ALL THE OTHER YEARS SIMILAR GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TA KEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS. AFTER G OING THROUGH THE SAME, MA NOS. 69 TO 72/MUM/2017 M/S. MUTHA PARASRAM DHANAJI & CO 3 FOLLOWING THE REASONING GIVEN HEREINABOVE, WE DO NO T FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPLICATION SO FILED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND MAY, 2018. SD/ - SD/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) (R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 2 ND MAY, 2018 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) -CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT - CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. THE DR, J BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.