MONOHARLAL HANUMANBAGAS SARDA,SANGLI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, SANGLI

MA 9/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by Manoharlal Hanumanbagas Sarda against an earlier ITAT order concerning the Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee contended that his representative mistakenly stated during the ITAT hearing that no contract notes were furnished to the Assessing Officer, which was crucial for proving the genuineness of his loss figures in commodity and derivatives trading. The Assessee also claimed that his Cross Objections were not adjudicated. The ITAT dismissed both claims, stating that the contract notes issue was adequately addressed in the previous order and that the Cross Objections had been discussed and decided.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29539 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Other Referred Cases: Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801, CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540, PCIT Vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd., 412 ITR 461
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI ADD
• Assessee Lawyers: MISS RADHA HALBE DEODHAR
• Keywords: Bogus

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Miscellaneous Application No.9/PUN/2024 (arising out of ITA No.1822/PUN/2018) िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Manoharlal Hanumanbagas Sarda, Plot No.112, R.S.Sarda & Company, Market Yard, Sangli – 416416. PAN: ADWPS1495A V s The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Sangli. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Miss Radha Halbe Deodhar – Advocate Revenue by Shri Arvind Desai – Add.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 29/11/2024 Date of pronouncement 05/02/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This Miscellaneous application filed by the Assessee against the Tribunal order in ITA No.1822/PUN/2018 for A.Y.2010-11, dated 10.01.2023. MA No.9/PUN/2024 [A] 2 2. The Assessee has stated in the Miscellaneous Application as under : “1. In the course of hearing before the Hon'ble Bench, the Applicant's Representative inadvertently stated that no contract notes in support of the derivative transactions were furnished to the Ld. Assessing officer The relevant extract of para 10.2 on page 21 of the ITAT order is re-produced below \"All these facts put a heavy burden on the assessee to prove genuineness of his loss figures in commodity and derivatives, as the case may be which is yet to be discharged. We sought to know during the course of hearing as to whether the assessee has filed the relevant contract notes on record or not. The reply received from his side is in negative only.\" However, the Applicant vide submission dated 28.12.2017 had furnished the copies of contract notes Further, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide an order dated 21.09.2018 alo confirmed the fact that the contract notes were furnished by the applicant The relevant para of the order is re-produced below \"The accounts and contract note had reflected the details of transactions of commodity trading and the AO had not proved such transactions as bogus. The AO had decided the issue merely on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing and third party statement, totally ignoring the brokers contract notes and the fact that the appellant was engaged in trading in turmeric and transactions of commodity exchange was done through valid stock brokers, registered and recognized by the NCDEX/ NMCE.\" The Hon'ble Bench had held that the genuineness of transactions cannot be ascertained. The copies of contract notes not being MA No.9/PUN/2024 [A] 3 furnished was one of the factors to decide the genuineness of transactions Since the Applicant's Representative inadvertently submitted that contract notes were not submitted, the genuineness of the transactions was held to be not established before the Hon'ble Bench, which goes to the root of the matter. 2. The Hon'ble Bench had passed an order dated 10.01. 2023 without adjudicating the cross objections of the Applicant.” 3. The Second issue raised by the Assessee in Miscellaneous Application is that Cross Objections of the Assessee has not been decided by the ITAT. However, we have perused the ITAT order in ITA No.1822/Pun/2018, C.O.No.16/PUN/2022 for A.Y.2010-11 and it is noted that ITAT in Para-6 to 9 has discussed the Assessee’s Cross Objection and decided it. Therefore, there is no merit in the Miscellaneous Application claiming that Cross Objection has not been decided by ITAT. Accordingly, the Ground No.2 of the Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. 4. In the Ground No.1, Assessee claimed that Assessee’s Authorised Representative by mistake submitted before ITAT MA No.9/PUN/2024 [A] 4 that contract notes were not furnished. However, we have perused the entire order of ITAT and observed that ITAT has decided the issue against assessee on various factors discussed in the order and following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801, CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540, PCIT Vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd., 412 ITR 461. ITAT at length has discussed the issue of genuineness. Assessee claimed that CIT(A) has recorded a finding that contract notes were submitted. We have perused the entire order of ld.CIT(A), the decision part starts from para 6.3, page 37 onwards. Nowhere, ld.CIT(A) has given a finding that Assessee had produced contract notes. Prior to para 6.3, it is mere reproduction of assessee’s submission. The para referred by Assessee is mere claim made by assessee in the Written Submission before the ld.CIT(A). However, ld.CIT(A) has not verified the fact. In these facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the contention of the Assessee that ld.CIT(A) MA No.9/PUN/2024 [A] 5 recorded the finding regarding contract notes. Before us, Assessee merely pleaded that Authorized Representative by mistake made a statement during the hearing that contract notes were not filed. However, no affidavit of the then Authorised Representative has been filed along with the Miscellaneous Application to support the submission of the Assessee. It is to be noted that Mr.Tejender Singh was the Council for the Assessee who appeared before the ITAT during the hearing of ITA No.1822/PUN/2018. However, during the hearing for Miscellaneous Application, Ms.R.H.Deodhar appeared, who was not the Authorised Representative when the ITA No.1822/PUN/2018 was heard in ITAT. No document has been filed by the Assessee to prove the averments made in the Miscellaneous Application. In these facts and circumstances of the case, there is no mistake apparent from the record. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Application of the Assessee is dismissed. MA No.9/PUN/2024 [A] 6 5. In the result, Miscellaneous Application raised by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 5th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 5th Feb, 2025/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "