SYED ZUBAIR PASHA,TANDUR V. ITO., WARD-1, VIKARABAD

MA 63/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the assessee, Syed Zubair Pasha, who contested the addition of Rs.25,19,900 to his income as unexplained cash deposits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Initially, the Assessing Officer accepted a business income declared on presumptive basis but added the same amount as unexplained. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to an appeal at the Tribunal. The Tribunal's earlier decision partly allowed the appeal but sustained the addition of Rs.25,19,900. The assessee's subsequent application for rectification argued that the Tribunal's order mistakenly granted relief only on the net profit and not on the turnover, which was already considered in the income declaration. The Tribunal dismissed the application, citing that the assessee's request amounted to a review of the decision, which is not allowed under the current legal framework.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773181 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT vs. Sourashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAYAL GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SANDHYA
• Keywords: Business income; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 68

Judgement Text

"INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No.63/Hyd./2025 Arising out of ITA.No.1405/Hyd./2024 - Assessment Year 2016-2017 Syed Zubair Pasha, VIKARABAD – 501 141. PAN BOWPS3830M vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, VIKARABAD. (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : MS S. Sandhya, Advocate For Revenue : MS Payal Gupta, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 12.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G, A.M. : The above Miscellaneous application has been moved by the assessee requesting to rectify the mistakes crept in the order of the Tribunal dated 18.03.2025 in ITA.No.1405/Hyd./2024 by exercising it’s jurisdiction u/sec.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA.No.63/Hyd./2025 2. The contents of the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee reads as under : “1. The applicant herein in this miscellaneous application is the appellant in the above-captioned appeal filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The applicant- assessee is an individual deriving income from business of trading in stones. For the A.Y. 2016-17, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing notice dt.29.03.2021 u/s 148 for verification of the source of cash deposits of Rs.25,19,900/- in the bank account held by the applicant. Though the applicant could not file return of income, a computation of total income admitting Rs.4,53,980/- which includes business income of Rs.5,03,980/- @20% of gross business receipts of Rs.25,19,900 on presumptive basis was filed. 2. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 rws 144 and passed assessment order dt.31.03.2022. The Assessing Officer accepted the returned income of Rs.4,53,980/- as worked out in the computation i.e., business income of Rs.5,03,980/- @20% of gross business receipts of Rs.25,19,900 on presumptive basis. However, the Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.25,19,900/- u/s 68 as unexplained. 3. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the applicant-assessee preferred appeal before the NFAC/CIT(A) challenging addition of Rs.25,19,900/- u/s 68 as unexplained income. The Ld. CIT(A) disposed the said appeal vide order dt.07.10.2024 dismissing the grounds of appeal taken by the applicant assessee challenging the addition of Rs.25,19,900/-. 4. Further aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.25,19,900/-. 5. The Hon'ble Tribunal, vide tribunal order dt.18.03.2025 disposed the assessee's appeal as partly allowed. The Hon'ble Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs.4,53,980/- towards net profit declared in the statement of total income and sustain balance addition of Rs.25,19,900/- towards cash deposited into bank account. In fact, the Assessing Officer himself accepted the total income of Rs.4,53,980/- admitted in the computation of income filed during the assessment proceedings, which included business income of Rs.5,03,980/- Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA.No.63/Hyd./2025 being income offered @ 20% of gross business receipts of Rs.25,19,900/- on presumptive basis. The Assessee had been all along challenging the only addition of Rs.25,19,900/- wrongly made u/s 68 as unexplained during the assessment proceedings and the first appellate proceedings and also before the Hon'ble Tribunal specifically on the ground that once the Assessing Officer accepted the business income admitted on the gross receipts of Rs.25,19,900/- the entire sources for cash deposits appearing in the bank account is fully explained and therefore, there could be any separate addition, nonetheless u/s 68. 6. The applicant submits that the Hon'ble Tribunal has, by mistake, granted relief of only Rs.4,53,980/- being net profit offered in the computation, instead granting relief of the total tumover on which such income is offered. The assessee pleaded before the Hon'ble Tribunal for deletion of addition of Rs.25,19,900/- made u/s 68 in the impugned assessment order and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on various grounds as the same represent turnover on which profit was already admitted. However, the assessee had never taken any ground for deletion of only returned income of Rs.4,53,980/- which was admitted in the computation of income filed during the assessment proceedings and accepted by the Assessing Officer. 7. The applicant with due respects brings to the kind notice of the Hon'ble Tribunal that there was a mistake apparent from record in granting relief of only Rs.4,53,980/-instead of Rs.25,19,900/-. 8. The appellant further submits that above issue has direct nexus on adjudication of addition of Rs.25,19,900/- u/s 68 as unexplained in as much as there could be any addition u/s 68 on facts and also in law. As submitted, once the net profit on gross business receipts was accepted by the Assessing Officer, the source for cash deposits appearing in the bank account was automatically explained and therefore, no separate addition can be made under the provisions of Income Tax Act, nonetheless u/s 68. The appellant submits that section 68 deals with cash credit recorded in the books of account and admittedly, there were no books of account maintained by the assessee and bank passbook is not an account book and therefore, no addition could be made u/s 68 as unexplained cash deposits of Rs.25,19,900/- in the bank account. Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA.No.63/Hyd./2025 9. The applicant therefore prays the Hon'ble Tribunal kindly to rectify the said mistakes apparent from record exercising the powers conferred u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. MS. S. Sandhya, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, filed a petition requesting for adjournment of hearing on the ground that Advocate who has to represent the matter is not in a position to attend the Tribunal due to some personal inconvenience. Considering the petition filed by the assessee for rectification of the Order, we reject the adjournment petition filed by the assessee and heard the Learned Counsel for the Assessee on the issue and considered the relevant Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee u/sec.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Tribunal dated 18.03.2025. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, therefore submitted that, there is a mistake in the order of the Tribunal dated 18.03.2025 inasmuch as, once profit has been estimated on total cash deposits, then, further addition made towards cash deposit u/sec.68 of the Act cannot be sustained because, after estimation of profit it is presumed that source for cash deposit is explained. Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA.No.63/Hyd./2025 Therefore, she submitted that, the order of the Tribunal dated 18.03.2025 should be recalled. 4. MS Payal Gupta, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that, the assessee has failed to make-out a case of mistake apparent on record from the order of the Tribunal dated 18.03.2025 and what is sought through the present Miscellaneous Application is to review the decision given by the Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances of the case which is not permissible. Thus, she argued that, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee should be dismissed. 5. We have heard both the parties and considered the relevant contents of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee seeking for recall of the order dated 18.03.2025 of the Tribunal u/sec.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and more particularly, in para-7 of the Order where the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that, although, the assessee has filed statement of total income explaining source for cash deposit of Rs.25,19,000/- out of business receipts and declared profit of Rs.4,53,980/-, but, Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA.No.63/Hyd./2025 failed to file any evidence in support of her contention. Further, the Tribunal had given relief to the assessee towards addition made by the Assessing Officer for estimation of profit for Rs.4,53,980/- by holding that, once total addition is made for cash deposit, further addition on estimation of profit on such cash deposit amounts to double addition. In our considered view, the said finding of the Tribunal is on the basis of facts available on record and arguments advanced by both the parties. Therefore, the petition filed by the assessee seeking for recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 18.03.2025 is nothing, but, to an attempt to review the order of the Tribunal in the garb of rectification which is not permissible in law in light of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs., Sourashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) and CIT vs., Reliance Telecom Ltd,., [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC). Thus, we dismiss the M.A. filed by the assessee. 6. In the result, M.A.No.63/Hyd./2025 of the Assessee is dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com 7 MA.No.63/Hyd./2025 Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [RAVISH SOOD] [MANJUNATHA G] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 23rd September, 2025 VBP Copy to 1. Syed Zubair Pasha, 6-8-121/1, Murshad Dharga, Tandur, VIKARABAD – 501 141. Telangana. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Office, VIKARABAD – 501 102. Telangana. 3. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4. The DR ITAT “B” Bench, Hyderabad 5. Guard File //By Order// //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "