ACIT, Trichy V. Ponmahal Income, Karur

MA 76/CHNY/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0306 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 69B

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘डी’ ायपीठ चे ई म । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ,ी महावीर िसंह, उपा23 एवं माननीय ,ी मनोज कु मार अ8वाल ,लेखा सद; के सम3। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM M.A.No.76/Chny/2022 (Arising out of ITA No. 1235/Chny/2017) (िनधाCरणवषC / Assessment Year:2012-13) ACIT Central Circle -2, Trichy. बनाम / V s. M/s. Ponmahal Income No. 25/2, Ramakrishnapuram north, Karur. थायीलेखासं. /जीआइआरसं. /P A N/ G I R No . AAO F P - 5 5 6 6 - E (अ पीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ कीओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn (Advocate) – Ld. AR थ कीओरसे/Revenue by : Dr. S. Palani Kumar (CIT)– Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of He arin g : 19.08.2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member): 1. By way of this application, the revenue seeks interference in Tribunal order passed in captioned appeal on 14.02.2022. 2. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that addition of unexplained investment u/s 69B was made on the basis of loose sheet found in assessee’s premises which was seized during the course of search. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the bench has not taken into account the arguments of departmental representative that loose sheet as seized by the M.P No. 76/Chny/2022 2 department was relatable to the assessee. The arguments with regard to linking of assessee firm with the contents of the seized documents have not been incorporated and no findings have been rendered by the bench in the order. Rather it has merely been mentioned that DR supported the findings of lower authorities and submitted that the additions were based on seized material found during the course of search action. Therefore, there is mistake in the order and the issue may be adjudicated on the basis of arguments made by CIT-DR. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, opposed any interference in the order. 3. Upon perusal of the order, it could be seen that the relevant facts of AY 2012-13 alongwith the case of revenue has been noted by the bench in paras 4.1 to 4.4 of the order. The fate of appellate proceedings was noted in para 5.1 and 5.2 of the order. The adjudication for AY 2012-13 has been rendered by the bench in paras 6 to 10 of the order. In para-6, the bench perused loose sheet no.12 of Annexure PAF/DAM/LS/S, Sl. No.1 and rendered a finding that this document could not be connected with the assessee firm. It was further held that there was no evidence / material before revenue to link the assessee with this document. Therefore, the document was nothing but merely a ‘dumb document’ which, on standalone basis’, could not be used to make impugned additions in the hands of the assessee. These findings are fact-based findings considering the entire factual matrix as well as settled legal position in terms of various case laws as discussed in para 8 of the order. The reason to arrive at such a conclusion has already been elaborated in the adjudication. Therefore, to say that the arguments of the revenue have not been considered while passing the order, is not a correct proposition. All the arguments made by revenue have duly been M.P No. 76/Chny/2022 3 considered while passing the order. Once the order has been passed by the bench, it becomes functus-officio and the only way of interference in the order is as per statutory mandate as provided u/s 254(2). These provisions call for interference in the order only if there is any mistake which is apparent from the record and nothing beyond. If the submissions of Ld. CIT-DR are to be accepted, it would become a review of the order which is impermissible and beyond the scope of Sec.254(2). Therefore, the plea could not be accepted and we see no reason to interfere in the order. 4. The application stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 19 th October, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा23 /VICE PRESIDENT (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखासद; / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे+ईChennai; िदनांकDated : 19-10-2022 JPV JPVJPV JPV आदेशकीYितिलिपअ8ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. यथ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयु /CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF