RISHAV DUTTA,PATNA V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

MA 3/PAT/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Rishav Dutta, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of an ITAT order dated 06.06.2023 concerning the Assessment Year 2017-18. The original ITAT order had remanded several issues back to the CIT(A), including the deletion of additions under unaccounted cash and stock, and disallowance under Section 80C. The appellant contested that no new evidence was presented that could have led to such a remand. The Department supported the original ITAT decision. After considering the submissions and the ITAT's previous order, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no grounds for rectification.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112245 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; Rectification of order
• Section: 145; 80C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH PATNA SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 03/Pat/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 51/Pat/2020) (Assessment Year 2017-18) Rishav Dutta, B/302, Kewal Mukund Bihari Dham, Sri Krishan Nagar, Patna – 800001 [PAN: BFYPD0308C] ..….............................. Appellant vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Patna ..…............................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Mashendra Kumar Mashi, CA Department represented by : Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 03.01.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 16.04.2025 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Assessee for rectification of order, dated 06.06.2023, passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 51/Pat/2020, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the order of the Hon’ble ITAT that fresh evidence /documents produced such as paper books containing documents. But Ld. DR has failed to produced single additional documents which I have produced before CIT(A) and not produced before the Ld AO. 2. For that the order of the Hon’ble ITAT that adjudicate a fresh on the Issue by taking into consideration under Section 145 read with Section 145A(ii) and relevant ICDS IV. But neither the Ld. Assessing officer order have any adverse remark on the same issue nor it was the ground of appeal before your honour. 3. For that any other ground that may be urged in the course of hearing.” 2 MA No. 3/Pat/2023 Rishav Dutta 1.1 In this case, the ITAT had passed an order in the case of Rishav Dutta Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna, ITA No. 51/Pat/2020 dated 06.06.2023 through which the issues were remanded to the file of Ld. CIT(A) on several counts, pertaining to relief provided by the Ld. CIT(A) as follows: (i) Deleting the addition of Rs. 79,720/- under the head unaccounted cash. (ii) Rs. 6,43,12,861/- under the head unaccounted stock. (iii) Disallowance of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- u/s 80C of the Act. (iv) Rs. 8,09,41,344/- allowed as relief on account of unexplained cash credit. The relevant findings of the ITAT deserve to be extracted as under: “3.5. We have the heard rival contentions and carefully perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is noted that he has placed reliance on confirmation letters and income-tax returns of the tenants in respect of which it was claimed that their stock was also lying at the business premises where the survey was conducted in order to explain the discrepancy found in the stock in the course of survey. Similarly, in respect of cash found during the survey, the cash book was furnished before the ld. CIT(A). Also, the documentary evidence for the premium paid to claim deduction u/s. 80C was presented before the Ld. CIT(A). In the interest of justice and fair play, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the ld. AO so as to examine and verify these documents and records and obtain a remand report before disposing of the appeal by giving relief to the assessee. Considering the present set of facts, we find it proper to remit the matter contained in ground no. 1 to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate on the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Ld. AO by obtaining a remand report in respect of the documents and records furnished by the assessee. We also direct that assessee be given opportunity to furnish his rejoinder on the remand report, if he so desires. Accordingly, ground no. 1 taken by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A), we note that assessee has elaborately explained his case by explaining the methodology of accounting adopted in respect of sales and VAT in his books of account. Ld. CIT(A) has given his finding after considering the submissions made by the assessee and allowed the relief. However, we note that cognizance of section 145 read with section 145A(ii) and relevant ICDS IV for revenue recognition has not been taken into consideration which have become applicable from AY 2017-18, the year under consideration before us i.e. AY 2017- 18. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, finding force in the submissions made by Sr. DR, we remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on this issue by taking into consideration the provisions of section 145 read with section 145A(ii) and relevant ICDS IV. Needless to say that both the parties i.e. Ld. AO and the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to make their respective 3 MA No. 3/Pat/2023 Rishav Dutta submissions. Accordingly, ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.” 2. The Ld. AR for the assessee has averred that the assessee allegedly did not produce any new evidence before the ITAT which could have prompted the remanding back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 2.1 Regarding the second issue of remanding back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for taking into consideration the provisions of section 145, read with section 145A(ii) of the Act and relevant ICDS, it has been averred that such issue was never before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Ld. DR relied on the order of Hon’ble ITAT (supra). 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. AR/DR and also gone through the ITAT’s order in the assessee’s own case. It is clear from the extracted paras 3.5 to 5 of the ITAT’s order (supra) that a considered view has been taken while remanding the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A). There is no factual error visible in the said order which could have been considered to be any kind of rectifiable error in the said order. Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Application is rejected. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 16.04.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Garg) (Sanjay Awasthi) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 16.04.2025 AK, P.S. 4 MA No. 3/Pat/2023 Rishav Dutta Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Rishav Dutta 2. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Patna 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR) //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches "