THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD V. .POONAM BRIJLAL LALCHANDANI, AHMEDABAD

MA 135/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad as the applicant and Poonam Brijlal Lalchandani as the respondent. The dispute arose from an addition of Rs. 20,03,600 as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, based on a seized excel sheet during a search operation. The Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the assessee, stating the excel sheet did not mention the assessee's name nor establish a connection to any on-money transaction. However, the Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application pointing out a factual error in the Tribunal's order regarding the mention of the assessee's name in the excel sheet, leading to the recall of the Tribunal's earlier decision and scheduling a new hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29646 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B.P. SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: S.N. DIVATIA
• Section: 143(1); 132; 69A; 153C

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद \u0011ायपीठ ‘‘A’’ अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 135/Ahd/2024 (Arising out of IT(SS)A No. 140/Ahd/2023) Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad Vs Poonam Brijlal Lalchandani, 90/2, GIDC, Phase-I, Vatva, Ahmedabad-382 445 PAN : AACPL 8891 N Applicant Respondent Revenue by : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divatia, AR सुनवाई क\t तार\fख/Date of Hearing : 06.12.2024 घोषणा क\t तार\fख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue in respect of order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2011.12 2. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee had filed her return of income on 28.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.5,63,690/- and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act. Thereafter, a search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the HN Safal Group on 04.09.2013 and during the search proceedings various documents were found and seized from the premises of HN Safal group in the form of hard disk. He submitted that the said hard disk contains the details of various residential and commercial projects MA No. 135/Ahd/2024 DCIT Vs. Poonam Brijlal Lalchandani Assessment Year : 2011-12 - 2 - which includes the data related to the NIRVANA scheme of M/s Manushi Land Developers containing the excel sheet namely “NIRVANA FINAL SHEET-27-01-12 D.xls” that belongs to the assessee wherein the assessee has purchased two plots in Nirvana Scheme and paid cash of Rs. 20,03,600/-. The Assessing Officer has mentioned the screen-shot of the said excel sheet and made an addition of Rs.20,03,600/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The Ld. DR also submitted that, aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who had dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal which vide order No. IT(SS)A No. 140/Ahd/2023 dated 30.07.2024 has allowed the appeal of the assessee mentioning that the excel sheet nowhere mentions the name of the assessee as well as it was not dealt with the assessee and there was no corresponding connection established related to the on-money transaction between HN Safal Group and the assessee; therefore, the seized material that of Excel Sheet was not at all related or belonged to the assessee and were merely dump document. The Ld. DR contended that the CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer has totally ignored the evidences filed by the assessee along with bank statements. He also invited our attention to the income-tax return and computation which was placed before the Assessing Officer and the assessee has explained the transaction during the assessment year which has not at all identical that there was cash transaction involved between the assessee and HN Safal group or Munushi Land Developers LL.P. MA No. 135/Ahd/2024 DCIT Vs. Poonam Brijlal Lalchandani Assessment Year : 2011-12 - 3 - 2.1 The Ld. DR has also drawn our attention to paragraph No. 7 of the order of the Tribunal in IT(SS)A No. 140/Ahd/2023 dated 30.07.2024 as under:- \"7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has twice requested for satisfaction note which was already recorded in the Assessment Order that the assessee requested satisfaction note on 04.10.2018 and 17.12.2018. When the assessee replied the show cause notice on 17.12.2018 categorically mentioned that the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer of searched person was given to the assessee and in fact the assessee has given the detailed reply in respect of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act thereby stating that the assessee had given all the details about the money paid to Manushi Land Developers LLP for purchase of plot of Nirvana Scheme and has not paid any cash money as described in his Excel Sheet narrated as ratio DIS. The Excel Sheet nowhere mentions the name of the assessee as well as it is not dealt with the assessee and there is no corresponding connection established related to the on-money transaction between HS Safal Group and the assessee. Therefore, the seized material that of Excel Sheet is not at all related or belonged to the assessee and are merely dump document in the present assessee's case. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer has totally ignored the evidences filed by the assessee alongwith bank statements, income tax return and computation which was before the Assessing Officer and the assessee has explained the transactions during the assessment year which has not at all indicated that there was cash transactions involved between the assessee and HN Safal group or Manushi Land Developers LLP. Hence, Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) was not justified in making the addition under Section 69A of the Act.\" 2.2 From the above, Ld. DR submitted that a factual error has been observed in the order of Tribunal as the excel sheet mentioned in the assessment order, reproduced in para no.6.6, clearly mentions the name of the assessee as under:- MA No. 135/Ahd/2024 DCIT Vs. Poonam Brijlal Lalchandani Assessment Year : 2011-12 - 4 - 2.3 The L. DR thus submitted that the observation of the Tribunal that \"the Excel Sheet nowhere mentions the name of the assessee as well as it is not dealt with the assessee and there is no corresponding connection established related to the on-money transaction between HS Safal Group and the assessee\" is a mistake apparent from the record. He accordingly urges that, since the Tribunal ought to have decided the issue on merits, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee may be considered and the order of the Tribunal may be recalled. 3. The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the Tribunal dated 30.07.2024. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused all the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Ld. DR specifically pointed out thereby reproducing the excel-sheet, wherein the name of the assessee was reflecting, is a crucial fact which was not recorded correctly in the original order dated 30.07.2024 due to non-legibility of the copy of the assessment order given before us. Therefore, this is a mistake apparent from the record. Thus, the order dated 30.07.2024 MA No. 135/Ahd/2024 DCIT Vs. Poonam Brijlal Lalchandani Assessment Year : 2011-12 - 5 - needs to be recalled. The matter being IT(SS)A No. 140/Ahd/2023 be placed for hearing on 20th January, 2025 for fresh hearing. Both the parties be given notice accordingly by the Registry. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18.12.2024 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 18/12/2024 **btk आदेश क\b \t त\fल\u000eप अ\u0011े\u000eषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0018 / The Appellant 2. \u0019\u001aयथ\u0018 / The Respondent. 3. संबं\u001eधत आयकर आयु!त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु!त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. $वभागीय \u0019'त'न\u001eध, आयकर अपील\fय अ\u001eधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड- फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील\u001dय अ\u001eधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation- …16.12.2024………….. 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member …16.12.2024………. 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S.-. …17.12.2024………….…. 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement…18.12.2024… 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk……18.12.2024…………… 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk……………………………. 7. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order………… 8. Date of Despatch of the Order……………… "