Pragnesh K. Modi, Ahmedabad V. ITO Ward 1(2) (5), Ahmedabad

MA 96/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around the assessee, Pragnesh K. Modi, who was a partner in M/s. Balaji Infrastructure. The Assessing Officer added a portion of the purchase consideration of 14 properties, amounting to Rs. 97.12 lakhs, to the assessee's income for A.Y. 2012-13 based on information received through AIR. The ITAT had previously restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to determine the exact nature of the assessee's investment in these properties. In the current Miscellaneous Application, the assessee sought further directions for the Assessing Officer to issue notices to other partners and the partnership firm, which the ITAT dismissed as beyond the scope of a Miscellaneous Application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131373 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 133(6)

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Pragnesh K. Modi, 12-A, Su yog Bunglows, Nr. Ashw araj Bung lo ws, Nr. Prahladnag ar Gard en, Ah medabad PAN: AGIP M6008Q (Appellant) Vs The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Ah med abad (Resp ondent) Asses see b y : Shri Divy ang Shah, A. R. Revenue by : Shri S anjay kumar, Sr. D. R. Date of hearing : 10-02 -2023 Date of pronouncement : 04-05 -2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is against the order passed by ITAT in ITA No. 1638/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 vide order dated 12-10-2022. 2. The brief background of the case is that the assessee was a partner in M/s. Balaji Infrastructure and the Assessing Officer received information M.A. No. 96/Ahd/2022 (In ITA No. 1638/Ahd/2017) Assessment Year 2012-13 M.A. No. 96/Ahd/2022 (In I.T.A No. 1638/Ahd/2017) A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. Shri Pragnesh K. Modi vs. ITO 2 through AIR that 14 properties amounting 8.77 crores were purchased by 10 different persons, wherein the assessee was one of the purchasers of the said properties. In absence of any information forthcoming from the assessee, the Assessing Officer added 1/10 th of the total purchase consideration amounting to Rs. 97.12 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was also dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that in absence of any details, the claim of the assessee cannot be entertained. Before the ITAT, the contention of the assessee was that these 14 properties are agricultural lands and therefore could not be purchased in the name of partnership firm M/s. Balaji Infrastructure since as per local laws agricultural land can be acquired by agriculturists only. Therefore, all 14 properties were purchased in the name of farmers who are also the partners in the partnership firm M/s. Balaji Infrastructure. In the light of the arguments placed before ITAT, the ITAT observed that from the facts placed on record, it is not clear whether the assessee had made investments in 14 properties referred to above (the contention of the assessee before the ITAT was that he had made investments only three properties and for the balanced 11 properties he was only a confirming party). The ITAT observed from the sale deed, it is evident that the name of the assessee is appearing in all the sale deed with respect to 14 properties. Therefore, in absence of any clarity as to whether the assessee was a confirming party in respect of 14 properties or whether the assessee had actually made investments in the aforesaid properties, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with the following directions:- “In view of the above facts, in the interest of justice, we are restoring the matter back to the Assessing Officer in order to ascertain from the facts whether the assessee is only a confirming party in respect of the aforesaid transaction of M.A. No. 96/Ahd/2022 (In I.T.A No. 1638/Ahd/2017) A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. Shri Pragnesh K. Modi vs. ITO 3 investment in 14 properties or whether he is a owner in respect of such properties, the precise investment made by the assessee in the aforesaid properties and also to verify whether the source of such investment has been duly explained by the assessee. In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of Assessing Officer with the above directions. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” 3. Before us, the counsel for the assessee has filed the Miscellaneous Application stating that the ITAT has erred in not issuing further directions to the Assessing Officer to issue notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to other partners as well. Further, the assessee has also sought by way of this Miscellaneous Application that the ITAT can also give further direction to issue re-assessment notice, if required, to other partners of M/s. Balaji Infrastructure and also to partnership firm M/s. Balaji Infrastructure Ltd. itself. 4. On going through the contents of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, the same is being dismissed for the following reasons:- (i) The Miscellaneous Application has not pointed out to any error in the ITAT order which the assessee seeks to rectify by way of the aforesaid present Miscellaneous Application. (ii) We observe that the ITAT vide its order dated 12-10-2022 in ITA No. 1638/Ahd/2017 had given a categorical and a specific instruction to the Assessing Officer to find out the precise investment made by the assessee in the aforesaid properties. We observe that there is error in the direction given by the ITAT in the order sought to be rectified. M.A. No. 96/Ahd/2022 (In I.T.A No. 1638/Ahd/2017) A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. Shri Pragnesh K. Modi vs. ITO 4 (iii) By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee is submitting that the order of ITAT is erroneous since it should have given further directions to the Assessing Officer to issue notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to other partners and if required further, the notices u/s. 147 of the Act may also be issued to the other parties. This contention in our view is clearly beyond the scope of Miscellaneous Application, which can be filed in order to rectify any apparent mistake in the order of the ITAT and cannot be filed to ask the ITAT to issue further directions to the Assessing Officer. 5. In view of the above observations, the MA application of the assessee is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04-05-2023 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 04/05/2023 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद