Baidoddi Eshappa, Raichur V. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali, Hubali

MA 96/BANG/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application (MA No.96/Bang/2022) filed by Sri Baidoddi Eshappa against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubali, which was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The application sought to rectify alleged mistakes in the Tribunal's earlier order concerning the assessment year 2017-2018. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer had accepted all details during the assessment, and no additions were made regarding cash deposits during the demonetization period. However, the Principal Commissioner exercised his powers under section 263, deeming the earlier assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, which the Tribunal upheld.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115232 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2022
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Reliance Telecom Limited [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, VP & Shri Laxmi Praad Sahu, AM MA No.96/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 (Arising out of ITA No.459/Bang/2022) Sri.Baidoddi Eshappa Shop No.73, Plot No.10 Rajendra Gunj Raichur – 584 102. PAN : ACFPE5383H. v. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubali (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant by : Sri.V.Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 25.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 09.01.2023 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM : By this miscellaneous application, the assessee is seeking to rectify certain mistakes apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal dated 22.08.2022 in ITA No.459/Bang/2022, for the assessment year 2017-2018. The rectification sought for by the assessee vide application dated 03.09.2022, reads as under :- MA No.96/Bang/2022 Sri Baidoddi Eshappa. 2 MA No.96/Bang/2022 Sri Baidoddi Eshappa. 3 MA No.96/Bang/2022 Sri Baidoddi Eshappa. 4 MA No.96/Bang/2022 Sri Baidoddi Eshappa. 5 MA No.96/Bang/2022 Sri Baidoddi Eshappa. 6 MA No.96/Bang/2022 Sri Baidoddi Eshappa. 7 2. The learned AR reiterated the contents of the above submission made in the miscellaneous application and submitted that the Tribunal has committed a mistake while passing the order, the assessee has furnished all the details during the course of assessment proceedings as required by the Assessing Officer, and the A.O. after satisfying from the submissions of the assessee, passed his order and no addition was made in regard to cash deposit during the demonetization period, as it is also clear from para 5 of the assessment order. The Pr.CIT wrongly exercised his power u/s 263 of the Act and in the appellate proceedings, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Pr.CIT . Therefore, MA No.96/Bang/2022 Sri Baidoddi Eshappa. 8 there is apparent mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal and the same should be rectified by quashing the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act. The learned AR also submitted that the ld. Pr.CIT was also not justified in treating the amount deposited during the course of demonetization as unexplained investments, because the complete details in support of entries made in the books of account were produced before the A.O. 3. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative relied/supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that there is no mistake apparent from the order passed by the Tribunal. He also supported the order of the ld. Pr.CIT and submitted that the A.O. has not examined in detail the cash deposited during the demonetization period in terms of the notification issued by the CBDT. The learned DR submitted that the A.O. was required to examine the details of cash deposited during the demonetization period but instead of examining the same, the A.O. applied net profit rate at the rate of 6%. Therefore, the Pr.CIT is justified in exercising his power u/s 263 of the Act, and the Tribunal has rightly confirmed the order of the ld. Pr.CIT. The learned DR also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Telecom Limited [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC). 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the entire material available on record and the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the miscellaneous application filed by MA No.96/Bang/2022 Sri Baidoddi Eshappa. 9 the assessee u/s 254(2) of the I.T.Act for rectification of the mistake, we do not find any mistake apparent on record as observed by the assessee, and even during the course of hearing, the assessee could not point out any apparent mistake on record. In this context, we rely on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Telecom Limited [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court held that while considering the application under section 254(2) of the I.T.Act, the Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. In the present case, the conscious view taken by the Tribunal would not fall under the category of mistake apparent from record. We also notice form the assessment order that the AO has not examined the issue at the time of assessment proceedings in terms of the notification issued by the CBDT in regard to the examination by the revenue authorities to the cash deposited during the demonetization period, therefore the ld. Pr. CIT has rightly exercised his power u/s 263 of the Act.. Accordingly, the alleged mistakes pointed out in the petition would not fall under the category of mistakes apparent from record u/s 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the petition filed by the assessee. MA No.96/Bang/2022 Sri Baidoddi Eshappa. 10 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 09 th day of January, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (N.V.Vasudevan) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) VICE-PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore; Dated : 09 th January, 2023. Devadas G* Copy to : 1. The Applicant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The PCIT, Hubli 4. The Pr.CIT, Bangalore. 5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru. 6. Guard File. Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Bangalore