RAJESH MOTIRAM PANJUANI,MUMBAI V. CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

MA 86/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rajesh Motiram Panjuani, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The application sought to recall the ITAT's order dated 17.10.2024, which was related to issues of cash brokerage and alleged denial of proper opportunity during the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal examined the submissions and found that the appellant had been given sufficient opportunity to present his case and that the issues concerning cash brokerage had been adequately addressed in the original order. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant did not respond to the show cause notice during the assessment proceedings, which led to the completion of the assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 397910 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HIMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT KANABAR
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) MA No. 86/MUM/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 3134/MUM/2024) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajesh Motiram Panjuani, 17 Jay Ambe, 154 Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400077. Vs. ACIT Central Circle-6(2), Air India Building, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AAHPP 6752 F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Bharat Kanabar Revenue by : Mr. Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/05/2025 Date of pronouncement : 06/06/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee is seeking recall of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 17.10.2024 passed in ITA No. 3134/Mum/2024 for assessment year 2016-17. 2. The Ld. counsel for the assessee addressed to the Miscellaneous Application and submitted that suffers from mistake apparent form record for the reasons, no proper opportunity the assessee, secondly issue of cash brokerage thirdly, the issue of cash covered in show cause notice issued by the AO, finding in para 5.1 of the impugned order of commission in cheque received from ‘Bhoomi’ gro submitted that addition reasonable profit from commission 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also perused the material placed on record. As regards grievance of the assessee concerning the alleged denial of opportunity during the appellate proceedings, it has been submitted that the learned Authorised Representative was permitted to address the Bench for only a brief duration of one minute. considered opinion, if the assessee was genuinely aggrieved by any perceived inadequacy in the hearing, it was incumbent upon the Authorised Representative to bring the matter to the notice of the Bench forthwith and seek appropriate relief or adjournment Significantly, no such request appears to have been made at the relevant time. Moreover, no affidavit has been placed on record Rajesh Motiram Panjuani The Ld. counsel for the assessee addressed to the Miscellaneous Application and submitted that the impugned order suffers from mistake apparent form record for the reasons, no proper opportunity for arguments was granted to ld counsel for secondly, incorrect finding has been recorded cash brokerage of Rs. 11,90,200/- by the lower authorities , the issue of cash brokerage of Rs. 11,90,200/ covered in show cause notice issued by the AO, fourthly finding in para 5.1 of the impugned order of commission in cheque received from ‘Bhoomi’ group, Alternatively, submitted that addition in dispute is might be restricted to the from commission. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also perused the material placed on record. As regards grievance of the assessee concerning the alleged denial of opportunity during the appellate proceedings, it has been submitted that the learned Authorised Representative was permitted to address the Bench for only a brief duration of one minute. considered opinion, if the assessee was genuinely aggrieved by any perceived inadequacy in the hearing, it was incumbent upon the Authorised Representative to bring the matter to the notice of the Bench forthwith and seek appropriate relief or adjournment Significantly, no such request appears to have been made at the Moreover, no affidavit has been placed on record Rajesh Motiram Panjuani 2 MA No. 86/Mum/2025 The Ld. counsel for the assessee addressed to the the impugned order suffers from mistake apparent form record for the reasons, firstly, for arguments was granted to ld counsel for has been recorded on the by the lower authorities, of Rs. 11,90,200/- was not fourthly, erroneous finding in para 5.1 of the impugned order of commission in cheque the ld counsel restricted to the We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also perused the material placed on record. As regards the grievance of the assessee concerning the alleged denial of opportunity during the appellate proceedings, it has been submitted that the learned Authorised Representative was permitted to address the Bench for only a brief duration of one minute. In our considered opinion, if the assessee was genuinely aggrieved by any perceived inadequacy in the hearing, it was incumbent upon the Authorised Representative to bring the matter to the notice of the Bench forthwith and seek appropriate relief or adjournment. Significantly, no such request appears to have been made at the Moreover, no affidavit has been placed on record either by the assessee or by the counsel who represented the matter before the Tribunal, substantiating the allegation of deni adequate opportunity. In the absence of any contemporaneous evidence or formal protest recorded during the proceedings, the claim of lack of proper hearing appears to be an afterthought, raised only after the decision has gone against the assessee. unsubstantiated and bald allegations, devoid of any supporting material, cannot form the basis to impeach the fairness of the judicial proceedings. We, therefore, find no merit in the contention that there was a denial of proper opportunity before the 3.1 As regards the contention of the assessee that neither was he confronted with the issue of cash brokerage amounting to Rs. 11,90,200/- nor was such issue covered in the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, we find no merit in submission. The records reveal that a show cause notice was indeed issued during the course of assessment proceedings. However, the assessee failed to furnish any response thereto, as is evident from Para 2 of the assessment order as reproduced below “2. In response to the notices Sh. Bharat Kanabar, CA, duly authorised by the assessee appeared on 24.10.2018. Sh. Kanabar was requested to file the details called for as per the aforesaid notice u/s. 142(1) and he was given time upto 02.11.2018 to file submitted. Thereafter, Sh. Kanabar appeared on 24.12.2018 and expressed his inability to produce/submit any details. The AR was informed that the assessment would be completed u/s. 144 to the best of judgement on record.” Rajesh Motiram Panjuani either by the assessee or by the counsel who represented the matter before the Tribunal, substantiating the allegation of deni adequate opportunity. In the absence of any contemporaneous evidence or formal protest recorded during the proceedings, the claim of lack of proper hearing appears to be an afterthought, raised only after the decision has gone against the assessee. unsubstantiated and bald allegations, devoid of any supporting material, cannot form the basis to impeach the fairness of the judicial proceedings. We, therefore, find no merit in the contention that there was a denial of proper opportunity before the As regards the contention of the assessee that neither was he confronted with the issue of cash brokerage amounting to Rs. nor was such issue covered in the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, we find no merit in submission. The records reveal that a show cause notice was indeed issued during the course of assessment proceedings. However, the assessee failed to furnish any response thereto, as is evident from Para 2 of the assessment order as reproduced below: 2. In response to the notices Sh. Bharat Kanabar, CA, duly authorised by the assessee appeared on 24.10.2018. Sh. Kanabar was requested to file the details called for as per the aforesaid notice u/s. 142(1) and he was given time upto 02.11.2018 to file the details electronically. No details were submitted. Thereafter, Sh. Kanabar appeared on 24.12.2018 and expressed his inability to produce/submit any details. The AR was informed that the assessment would be completed u/s. 144 to the best of judgement on the basis of material available on Rajesh Motiram Panjuani 3 MA No. 86/Mum/2025 either by the assessee or by the counsel who represented the matter before the Tribunal, substantiating the allegation of denial of adequate opportunity. In the absence of any contemporaneous evidence or formal protest recorded during the proceedings, the claim of lack of proper hearing appears to be an afterthought, raised only after the decision has gone against the assessee. Such unsubstantiated and bald allegations, devoid of any supporting material, cannot form the basis to impeach the fairness of the judicial proceedings. We, therefore, find no merit in the contention that there was a denial of proper opportunity before the Tribunal.\" As regards the contention of the assessee that neither was he confronted with the issue of cash brokerage amounting to Rs. nor was such issue covered in the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, we find no merit in such submission. The records reveal that a show cause notice was indeed issued during the course of assessment proceedings. However, the assessee failed to furnish any response thereto, as is evident from : 2. In response to the notices Sh. Bharat Kanabar, CA, duly authorised by the assessee appeared on 24.10.2018. Sh. Kanabar was requested to file the details called for as per the aforesaid notice u/s. 142(1) and he was given time upto the details electronically. No details were submitted. Thereafter, Sh. Kanabar appeared on 24.12.2018 and expressed his inability to produce/submit any details. The AR was informed that the assessment would be completed u/s. 144 the basis of material available on 3.2 In view of the above, the allegation of lack of opportunity stands disproved. The claim is, therefore, ill be rejected, especially in light of the incriminating material brought on record and the express admission by the assessee of receipt of the said cash brokerage 3.3 With regard to the next allegation raised by the assessee concerning the purported erroneous findings recorded by the Tribunal, we do not find any substance in such co been urged by the assessee that he was never confronted with the seized material and that no commission was received by way of cheque. However, the record reveals that the Assessing Officer had duly issued a notice under Section 142(1) of response to the queries raised, to which the assessee failed to respond. Consequently, a show cause notice under Section 144 of the Act was issued, which also remained uncomplied with. During the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer fu the incriminating material, which were duly forwarded to the assessee by the learned CIT(A). Hence, the allegation of non confrontation with the incriminating evidence is devoid of merit. 3.4 As regards the receipt of commission by cheque has correctly referred to the relevant seized documents, which specifically mention both cheque and cash components. It is further noted that during the course of survey proceedings, the assessee himself admitted to the receipt of brokerage Rajesh Motiram Panjuani In view of the above, the allegation of lack of opportunity stands disproved. The claim is, therefore, ill-founded and liable to be rejected, especially in light of the incriminating material brought rd and the express admission by the assessee of receipt of the said cash brokerage. With regard to the next allegation raised by the assessee concerning the purported erroneous findings recorded by the Tribunal, we do not find any substance in such co been urged by the assessee that he was never confronted with the seized material and that no commission was received by way of cheque. However, the record reveals that the Assessing Officer had duly issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act seeking response to the queries raised, to which the assessee failed to respond. Consequently, a show cause notice under Section 144 of the Act was issued, which also remained uncomplied with. During the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer furnished copies of the incriminating material, which were duly forwarded to the assessee by the learned CIT(A). Hence, the allegation of non confrontation with the incriminating evidence is devoid of merit. As regards the receipt of commission by cheque has correctly referred to the relevant seized documents, which specifically mention both cheque and cash components. It is further noted that during the course of survey proceedings, the assessee himself admitted to the receipt of brokerage based on documents Rajesh Motiram Panjuani 4 MA No. 86/Mum/2025 In view of the above, the allegation of lack of opportunity founded and liable to be rejected, especially in light of the incriminating material brought rd and the express admission by the assessee of receipt of With regard to the next allegation raised by the assessee concerning the purported erroneous findings recorded by the Tribunal, we do not find any substance in such contention. It has been urged by the assessee that he was never confronted with the seized material and that no commission was received by way of cheque. However, the record reveals that the Assessing Officer had the Act seeking response to the queries raised, to which the assessee failed to respond. Consequently, a show cause notice under Section 144 of the Act was issued, which also remained uncomplied with. During rnished copies of the incriminating material, which were duly forwarded to the assessee by the learned CIT(A). Hence, the allegation of non- confrontation with the incriminating evidence is devoid of merit. As regards the receipt of commission by cheque, the Tribunal has correctly referred to the relevant seized documents, which specifically mention both cheque and cash components. It is further noted that during the course of survey proceedings, the assessee based on documents seized in the case of the extracted the relevant portions of such material, which explicitly reflect the receipt of Rs. 3,06,000/ total brokerage. In light of the fo in the findings recorded by the Tribunal 3.5 As regards the assessee’s request for adopting a reasonable profit margin in respect of the brokerage income, it was submitted by the learned counsel that no business without incurring incidental expenditure, and hence, the income ought to be taxed on a net basis rather than gross. The Tribunal, after duly considering the submissions advanced during the course of the appeal hearing, has adjudicat in paragraph 5.1 of the appellate order “5.1 On perusal of the above material, it is evident that commission has been computed on separate real estate transactions and the brokerage also includes payment cheque which has not been declined/disputed by the assessee. Therefore, once, the brokerage recorded in same seized paper as received in cheque has been accepted by the assessee, we do not find any reason for not accepting the brokerage recorded i in the same seized paper. No justified explanation has been provided by the assessee in this respect. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the assessee that no such brokerage was received particularly when the assessee was confronted during surv proceedings and he accepted the fact of receipt of brokerage in cash, which prevented the tax authorities or the revenue from making further inquiry during the course of survey. Thus, the contentions of the assessee are rejected. However, the Ld. counse for the assessee alternatively submitted that addition has been made for the gross brokerage and no benefit for the expenses incurred against said brokerage income was allowed to the assessee. But the Ld. counsel did not bring on record any evidence of incurring any such expenses against said brokerage income Rajesh Motiram Panjuani seized in the case of the ‘Bhoomi Ekta’ Group. The Tribunal has extracted the relevant portions of such material, which explicitly reflect the receipt of Rs. 3,06,000/- by way of cheque, as part of the total brokerage. In light of the foregoing, we find no factual in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. As regards the assessee’s request for adopting a reasonable profit margin in respect of the brokerage income, it was submitted by the learned counsel that no business activity is carried out without incurring incidental expenditure, and hence, the income ought to be taxed on a net basis rather than gross. The Tribunal, after duly considering the submissions advanced during the course of the appeal hearing, has adjudicated upon the issue, as reflected in paragraph 5.1 of the appellate order as reproduced below: On perusal of the above material, it is evident that commission has been computed on separate real estate transactions and the brokerage also includes payment cheque which has not been declined/disputed by the assessee. Therefore, once, the brokerage recorded in same seized paper as received in cheque has been accepted by the assessee, we do not find any reason for not accepting the brokerage recorded i in the same seized paper. No justified explanation has been provided by the assessee in this respect. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the assessee that no such brokerage was received particularly when the assessee was confronted during surv proceedings and he accepted the fact of receipt of brokerage in cash, which prevented the tax authorities or the revenue from making further inquiry during the course of survey. Thus, the contentions of the assessee are rejected. However, the Ld. counse for the assessee alternatively submitted that addition has been made for the gross brokerage and no benefit for the expenses incurred against said brokerage income was allowed to the assessee. But the Ld. counsel did not bring on record any evidence ncurring any such expenses against said brokerage income Rajesh Motiram Panjuani 5 MA No. 86/Mum/2025 Group. The Tribunal has extracted the relevant portions of such material, which explicitly by way of cheque, as part of the regoing, we find no factual mistake As regards the assessee’s request for adopting a reasonable profit margin in respect of the brokerage income, it was submitted activity is carried out without incurring incidental expenditure, and hence, the income ought to be taxed on a net basis rather than gross. The Tribunal, after duly considering the submissions advanced during the course ed upon the issue, as reflected s reproduced below: On perusal of the above material, it is evident that commission has been computed on separate real estate transactions and the brokerage also includes payment through cheque which has not been declined/disputed by the assessee. Therefore, once, the brokerage recorded in same seized paper as received in cheque has been accepted by the assessee, we do not find any reason for not accepting the brokerage recorded in cash in the same seized paper. No justified explanation has been provided by the assessee in this respect. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the assessee that no such brokerage was received particularly when the assessee was confronted during survey proceedings and he accepted the fact of receipt of brokerage in cash, which prevented the tax authorities or the revenue from making further inquiry during the course of survey. Thus, the contentions of the assessee are rejected. However, the Ld. counsel for the assessee alternatively submitted that addition has been made for the gross brokerage and no benefit for the expenses incurred against said brokerage income was allowed to the assessee. But the Ld. counsel did not bring on record any evidence ncurring any such expenses against said brokerage income received in cash. The regular expenses against brokerage income reported as received by way of cheque has already been claimed by the assessee in the profit and loss account for the brokerage income shown in the regular return of income and allowed to the assessee, therefore, no further deduction could be allowed against the brokerage income recorded in the seized material. The ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly dismissed.” 3.6 What the assessee now seeks, in effect, is a review of the concluded findings of the Tribunal under the guise of a Miscellaneous Application. It is a well the Tribunal does not possess the power to review its own orders Accordingly, we find no justification to interfere. Accordingly, the request of the assessee is devoid of m 4. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 06/06/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Rajesh Motiram Panjuani received in cash. The regular expenses against brokerage income reported as received by way of cheque has already been claimed by the assessee in the profit and loss account for the brokerage shown in the regular return of income and allowed to the assessee, therefore, no further deduction could be allowed against the brokerage income recorded in the seized material. The ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly What the assessee now seeks, in effect, is a review of the concluded findings of the Tribunal under the guise of a Miscellaneous Application. It is a well-settled principle of law that the Tribunal does not possess the power to review its own orders Accordingly, we find no justification to interfere. Accordingly, the request of the assessee is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06/0 KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajesh Motiram Panjuani 6 MA No. 86/Mum/2025 received in cash. The regular expenses against brokerage income reported as received by way of cheque has already been claimed by the assessee in the profit and loss account for the brokerage shown in the regular return of income and allowed to the assessee, therefore, no further deduction could be allowed against the brokerage income recorded in the seized material. The ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly What the assessee now seeks, in effect, is a review of the concluded findings of the Tribunal under the guise of a settled principle of law that the Tribunal does not possess the power to review its own orders. Accordingly, we find no justification to interfere. Accordingly, the erit and liable to be rejected. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the /06/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Rajesh Motiram Panjuani Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Rajesh Motiram Panjuani 7 MA No. 86/Mum/2025 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "