Hotz Industries, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

MA 73/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4357 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-12-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JASPAL SINGH SETHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No.-73/Del/2020 [In ITA No.4970/Del/2016] [Assessment Year : 2013-14] M/s. Hotz Industries, 703-706, Chiranjiv Tower, 43, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. PAN-AAACH0092G vs DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Jaspal Singh Sethi, Adv. Respondent by Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 29.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement 10.01.2024 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This Miscellaneous Application (“M.A.”) has been filed by the assessee seeking recalling of the order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.4970/Del/2016 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 on the ground that the issue is a covered matter by the decision of the Tribunal. 2. A report was sought from the Assessing Officer (“AO”) regarding whether the assessee had agreed for the impugned addition during assessment proceedings. An affidavit has been filed by the AO and enclosed certified copy of order sheet dated 08.02.2016 to demonstrate that the Ld. Authorized Representative 2 | Page of the assessee agreed for the impugned addition. Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not controvert this fact. 3. The Tribunal in ITA No.4970/Del/2016 in assessee’s own case vide order dated 11.11.2019 had observed as under:- 5. “After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that appeal of assessee is liable to be dismissed. In this case, assessee company agreed for the impugned addition of Rs.3,86,362/-. It is well settled Law that no appeal lies to the appellate authorities on agreed additions. I rely upon Judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jivatlal Purtapshi vs Commissioner of Income Tax [1967] 65 ITR 261 (bom.), Judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Vamadevan Bhanu 330 ITR 559 (Kerala) and judgement of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh 129 ITR 239 (P&H). In this case through the assessment order has been passed on 12.02.2016 when counsel for assessee agreed for addition, the assessee did not take any steps to see if any wrong statement have been recorded by the A.O. In the absence of any contrary material on record, it is clearly established that assessee agreed for the impugned addition. Therefore, appeal of assessee is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.” 3 | Page 4. From the above, it is clear that the Tribunal had taken into account the finding of AO. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the M.A filed by the assessee, the same is hereby dismissed. 5. In the result, the M.A. filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10 th January, 2024. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI