SHRI CHANDULAL T.THAKKAR, Ahmedabad V. THE ACIT,CENT CIR .2(1), Ahmedabad

MA 74/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7584 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

, , . . , . , ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : A BENCH : AHMEDABAD BEFORE HONBLE SHRI D.K.TYAGI, J.M. & HONBLE SHR I A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M.) ## ## ## ## (M.A.) NO.74/AHD/2011 : B.P. 01.04.88 TO 22.9.199 8 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.127/AHD./2002) CHANDULAL T. THAKKAR, ABAD .... ( / APPLICANT) -VS- THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), ABAD ( $%& / RESPONDENT) ' ( /APPLICANT BY : SMT. URVASHI SHODHAN, A.R. $%& ' ( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR.D.R. ) * ' +! / DATE OF HEARING : 20/01/2012 ,- ' +! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/02/2012 . . . . / ORDER PER SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF CERTAIN MISTAKES ARISING OUT OF TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 18.02.2011 IN IT(SS) A NO.127/AHD/20 02 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.88 TO 22.9.1998. 2. THE ASSESSEE, VIDE ITS M.A. DATED 13.05.2011, HA S STATED AS UNDER: 1. THE PRESENT APPLICATION IS FILED FOR PASSING COR RIGENDUM TO THE ORDER CORRECTING THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN THE OR DER DATED 18/02/2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE ITAT DISMISSING T HE APPEAL OF THE RESPONDENT (ORIGINAL APPELLANT). IT IS MOST RESPECT FULLY SUBMITTED THAT 2 M.A.NO.74-AHD-2011 IN THE SAID ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, THERE ARE TY POGRAPHICAL ERRORS APPARENT ON THE RECORD. THE ERRORS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE NARRATED AS PER BELOW: (I) PAGE 21 PARA 29, 4 TH LINE REFERRING TO GROUND # 1 OF THE REVENUE 'THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 23,400/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PLOT. DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A.O. REFERRED TO LOOSE PAPER BEING DOCUMENT NO 34 FROM ANNEXURE A- 2, WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INVESTMENT OF RS. 83, 400/- IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PLOT' THE ABOVE LINE IN BOLD OUGHT TO READ AS WHEREIN ASS ESSEE HAD SHOWN INVESTMENT OF RS. 60,000/- IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PLOT. (II) PAGE 21 PARA 30 READS AS UNDER - 'BEFORE THE ID. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT A SUM OF RS. 60,000/- HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFOR E, AFTER VERIFYING, LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 60,000/-. THE ABOVE LINE IN BOLD OUGHT TO READ AS AFTER VERIF YING LD. CI T (A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 23,400/-. (II) PAGE 26 PARA 42(CONTINUED FROM PAGE 25) READS AS UNDER - . ....THE LD CIT (A) NOTED THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT WAS ONLY RS. 60,000/- AS PER PAGE - 3 OF THE SAID CASH BOOK WHEREAS RS. 5 0,000/- WRITTEN AS 500 IN CODE HAS BEEN SHOWN AS WITHDRAWAL AS PER THE SAID DOCUMENT. THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 60,000 /- WAS ADVANCE MADE BY SHRI HARILAL T. THAKKAR OUT OF FUNDS DISCLOSED BY HIM IN THE BLOCK RETURN AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE TOTAL DISCLOSURE MADE BY HI M WAS OF RS. 7,82,000/- BY SHRI HARILAL TEIARAM OUT OF WHICH RS. 60, 000/- WAS CLAIMED AS DEPOSIT... ' THE ABOVE LINES IN BOLD OUGHT TO READ ID. CIT (A) N OTED THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT WAS ONLY RS. 6,000/-AS PER PAGE - 3..... THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 6,000/- WAS ADVANCE MADE TO SHRI HARILAL T.THAKKAR... THE TOTAL 3 M.A.NO.74-AHD-2011 DISCLOSURE MADE BY HIM WAS OF RS. 7, 82,000/- BY SHRI CHANDULAL TEIARAM OUT OF WHICH RS. 6,000/- WAS CLAIMED AS DEPOSIT... 2. THE APPLICANT THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS T HAT IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL BE PLEASED TO ACCEPT THE PRAYER OF THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT AND MODIFY THE OR DER AS STATED ABOVE NARRATING THE CORRECTIONS IN BOLD WHEREVER TH E TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS HAVE OCCURRED. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED T HAT AT PAGE 21, PARA 29, 4 TH LINE, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER HAD MENTIONED HAD SHOWN INVESTMENT OF RS.83,400/- IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PLOT WHER EAS THE CORRECT AMOUNT TO BE MENTIONED AS RS.60,000/- . 2.1 ON OUR PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO DATED 30.11.2000 PARA NO.9, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LD. AO HAD NOTICED AN INVES TMENT OF RS.37,400/- AND RS.46,000/- MADE FOR THE PURCHASE OF PLOT NO.5 AND PLOT NO.15/16 RESPECTIVELY AGGREGATING TO RS.83,400/- FROM THE L OOSE PAPER NO.34 OF ANNEXURE A-2. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. AO MADE AN ADDIT ION OF RS.83,400/-. THEREFORE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE A PPARENT ON RECORD AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ALTER THE AMOUNT O F RS.83,400/- TO RS.60,000/-. 3. IT WAS FURTHER STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AT PA GE 21, PARA 30, 3 RD LINE, IT IS MENTIONED IN THE TRIBUNALS ORDER AND THEREFORE, AFTER VERIFYING, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.60,000/- , WHEREAS CORRECT FIGURE TO BE MENTIONED IS LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.23,400/- . 3.1 ON PERUSING THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER GROUND NO.3, LD. CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD AS UNDER: 4 M.A.NO.74-AHD-2011 ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PAID RS.23,400/- IN ADDITION TO RS.60,000/- ALREADY DISCLOSED. THE ADDI TION, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND DIRECTED TO BE DELETED . THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.23,400/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AT PAGE NO.21, PARA NO.29, IN THE 3 RD LINE OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, THE AMOUNT OF RS.60, 000/- SHALL STAND CORRECTED TO RS.23,400/-. 4. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AT PAGE 26 OF PARA 42 THERE ARE MISTAKES IN THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 18 /02/2011 IN MENTIONING THE FIGURE OF RS.60,000/-, WHEREAS THE CORRECT AMOUNT TO BE STATED IS RS.6,000/- . 4.1 THE LD. D.R. DID NOT OBJECT TO THE ABOVE SUBMIS SION OF THE LD. A.R. ON PERUSING THE LD.CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 05.03.2002 AT PAGE10, GROUND NO. 17, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS CORRECT . THEREFORE, IN THE SAID PAGE 26 OF PARA 42 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 18 /02/2011, THE FIGURES MENTIONED AS RS.60,000/- IN 7 TH , 9 TH AND 12 TH LINES SHALL STAND CORRECTED TO RS.6,000/- . IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. / . ' ,- 0 1 16 / 02 /201 2 2 ' * 3 SD/- SD/- (D.K.TYAGI) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED : 16/02/2012 5 M.A.NO.74-AHD-2011 . . . . ' '' ' $+# $+# $+# $+# 5#-+1 5#-+1 5#-+1 5#-+1- -- - 1. %& 2. $%& 3. + ); 4. );- - 5. #> $+ , , 3 6. A/ . , B/ D , 3 TALUKDAR/ SR. P.S.