Laxmi Gold Palace, Mehsana V. DCIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

MA 94/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Laxmi Gold Palace, the appellant, contesting an order by the DCIT Mehsana Circle regarding the assessment year 2015-16. The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application against the Tribunal's earlier order, claiming that the Tribunal had incorrectly stated that the documents presented did not show the bifurcation of quantities sold for gold and silver ornaments during a specific period. The appellant argued that these transactions were accounted for in the subsequent year. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had not provided adequate evidence to support this claim and thus dismissed the application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125026 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M. A . N o. 94 /A h d /2 0 2 2 ( I n I TA N o . 5 89 /A h d/2 0 1 9) ( A s se ss m e nt Y e a r : 20 15- 1 6 ) Lax mi G ol d Pa la ce , F- 2/3 , D e co n C o m p lex , S. T. Wo r k S ho p R o a d, Me h s a na V s . D C I T Me hs ana C ir cl e , Me hs ana [ P AN N o. A A BF L5 15 9J ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Suchit Patel, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. M. M. Garg, Sr. D.R. D a t e of H ea r i ng 10.02.2023 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 15.03.2023 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the assessee in respect of the order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in Para 9 of the Tribunal’s order the Tribunal has given incorrect finding that the documents shown at the time of hearing on 11.04.2022 by the assessee has not given the bifurcation as to how much was the quantity sold on the particular period related to Gold ornaments and silver ornaments which shows that the assessee was deliberately following unaccounted stock and when survey and when survey conducted the same was admitted by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. submitted that these particular transactions were offered and these stocks were taken into account in the nest year. The Ld. A.R. submitted that though it is not realize in current year the M.A No.94/Ahd/2022 (in ITA No. 589/Ahd/2019) Laxmi Gold Palace vs. DCIT Asst.Year– 2015-16 - 2 - same has offered in next year and carried forward till 31 st of March. The Ld. A.R. pointed out Page of Paper Book related to sales summary and Page 18 of Page in respect of silver sales. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that day wise stock register of gold and silver for A.Y. 2015-16 in Page Book Page No. 4 to 9 was shown the movement of quantity of Gold and Silver for A.Y. 2015-16. Sale register for A.Y. 2016-17 and 2017-18 in Paper Book Page No. 17 & 18 shows the quantity sold by the assessee in subsequent years. Therefore, the Ld. A.R. submitted that this factual mistake may be rectified and the matter may be re-heard. 3. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the Tribunal’s order is a reasoned order and the assessee is seeking review. There is a difference in opening and closing stock and no mistake has been apparent on record in respect of order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that in Para 9 of the Tribunal order it is categorically mentioned that the assessee never filed any supporting evidences. In fact, the contention of the Ld. A.R. that movement of quantity of Gold and Silver and the sale register for A.Y. 206-17 and 2017-18 has not specified the unaccounted stock. The Tribunal has taken cognizance of all these aspect and passed reasonable order and there is no need to interfere with the same. As regards, the bifurcation not filed related to quantity sold on particular period related to Gold ornaments and Silver ornaments the Paper Book Page No. 4 to 9 and 17 & 18 has given only the chart describing the quantity and value in respect of sales reports but no supporting evidence was filed by the assessee to that effect. Therefore, the assessee is seeking review of M.A No.94/Ahd/2022 (in ITA No. 589/Ahd/2019) Laxmi Gold Palace vs. DCIT Asst.Year– 2015-16 - 3 - the order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the Tribunal which is not allowable. Hence, the present Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. 5. In result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 15/03/2023 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 15/03/2023 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/ Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 09.03.2023 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 09.03.2023 3. Other Member..................... 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .03.2023 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .03.2023 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 15.03.2023 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 15.03.2023 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.......................................... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order.......................... 10. Date of Despatch of the Order..........................................