Yashodadevi Prahladray Shah, Nadiad V. The ACIT, Kheda Cicle, Nadiad

MA 84/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1377 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KUMAR SUTHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH GANDHI

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ अहमदाबाद यायपीठअहमदाबाद यायपीठ अहमदाबाद यायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद।अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. No. MA No. Applicant Respondent 1-8 MA No.84 to 91/Ahd/2018 IN ITA Nos.1820/Ahd/2013 ITA Nos.1822/Ahd/2013 ITA Nos.1824/Ahd/2013 ITA Nos.2243/Ahd/2015 ITA Nos.2245/Ahd/2015 ITA Nos.2021/Ahd/2014 ITA Nos.2022/Ahd/2014 ITA Nos.2024/Ahd/2014 Asstt.Years : 1998-1999 to 2005-2006 Yashodadevi Prahladray Shah ACIT, Kheda Circle, Nadiad. 9- 12 MA No.92 to 95/Ahd/2018 in ITA Nos.2025/Ahd/2014 ITA Nos.1563/Ahd/2014 ITA Nos.983/Ahd/2016 Asstt.Years : 2000-2001 to 2002-2003 AND ITA Nos.2027/Ahd/2014 Asstt.Year : 2004-2005 Durgesh Prahladray Shah -do 13 MA No.96/Ahd/2018 IN ITA Nos.2028/Ahd/2014 Asstt.Year : 2005-2006 Tejal Prahladray Shah -do Assessee by : Shri Suresh Gandhi, CA Revenue by : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR सुनवाई क तारीख/D a t e o f He a r in g : 26 / 0 7 / 2 0 2 4 घोषणा क तारीख /D a t e o f P r o no u nc e me nt : 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 2 4 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These are Misc. Applications by various assessees against the consolidated order passed by the ITAT in ITA No.1785/Ahd/2015 and MAs. No.84/Ahd/2018 and 12 Others 2 others dated 30.1.2018 pointing out certain apparent mistakes and seeking suitable amendment/rectification in the impugned orders. 2. Hearing took place in these MAs. on several occasions, and considering the applications filed by different assessees before us, the matter was heard for a considerable period of time, and attempt was made to understand mistake which was being pointed out by the ld.counsel for the assessee in the order passed by the ITAT. After several haring, it finally transpired that the mistake being pointed by the ld.counsel for the assessee were not in the order of the ITAT, but he was primarily aggrieved with the order passed by the AO, giving effect to the order of the ITAT for not having considered the order of the ITAT in the correct perspective. The MA filed by the assessee, are therefore, not maintainable for this reason. 3. However, we shall still deal with the specific mistakes which were pointed out by the ld.counsel on the last date of hearing, demonstrating that they are nothing to do with the mistake of the ITAT. When the ld.counsel for the assessee was specifically asked the mistake in the order of the ITAT, he took us to para 24 of the order, and pointed out that in the facts of the present case, additions were made in the hands of the assessee on account of FDRs found in their names, source of which were not explained. The ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ITAT at para-24 of its order attributed all the FDs. to one assessee i.e. Prahladray M. Shah and directed deletion of addition of FDs in the hands of other assessees. He pointed out from para-24 that the ITAT considering the plea of the assessee of telescoping of peak addition in the hands of Prahladray M. Shah and directed the Prahladray M. Shah to prepare his consolidated financial MAs. No.84/Ahd/2018 and 12 Others 3 statements for all the years, and directed the AO to finalise comprehensive computation of income after considering the peak theory and applying telescopic theory as per law. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the ITAT ought to have given a specific direction, since the AO in his order passed giving effected to the ITAT’s order, had not given benefit of telescoping. Similarly, he pointed out that it was pointed out to the ITAT that certain FDRs were made prior to the impugned years, and therefore, no cause of action lay for making addition of the same in the case of any of the assessee in the impugned year; that similarly, it was pointed that some of the FDs were in the names of third-party, and therefore, no cause of action lay for making the addition in the hands of any of the assessee. He pointed out that the AO in his order passed, giving effect to the order of the ITAT, had still added all the FDRs in the hands of Prahladray M. Shah. At this juncture, it was pointed out by the ld.counsel of the para-22 of the order, the ITAT had directed the AO to finalise the consequential assessment in the hands of first assessee, Prahladray M. Shah by adding of the sums as per law. To this, ld.counsel for the assessee countered by stating that the ITAT ought to have specifically dealt with the contentions of the assessee before it that certain FDRs were not taxable in the impugned year at all. 4. It is evident from the above that the ld.counsel for the assessee has failed to point any mistake apparent from record in the order of the ITAT. His grievance is only with respect to the order, giving effect to the order of the ITAT, passed by the AO. The assessee are well within their right to take recourse available against such order passed by the AO.