Mamatha Silk Centre, Suryapet,, Hyderabad v. ITO, Suryapet, Suryapet

MA 14/HYD/2017 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1422524 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN AADFM4192Q
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number MA 14/HYD/2017
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant Mamatha Silk Centre, Suryapet,, Hyderabad
Respondent ITO, Suryapet, Suryapet
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 17-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 17-11-2017
Last Hearing Date 03-11-2017
First Hearing Date 03-11-2017
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 31-03-2017
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 14/HYD/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1381/HYD/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 MAMATHA SILK CENTRE SURYAPET [PAN: AADFM4192Q] VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER SURYAPET (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO AR FOR REVENUE : SMT. N. SWAPNA DR DATE OF HEARING : 10-11-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-11-2017 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH A.M. : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE SMC-B BENCH OF ITAT HYDERABAD IN ITA NO. 1381/HYD/ 2013 DT. 14-09-2016. FOR DETAILED REASONS OF PREFERRING MISCE LLANEOUS APPLICATION IT IS BETTER TO EXTRACT THE PETITION AS SUCH I NTO THIS ORDER WHICH IS AS UNDER: PETITION REQUESTING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER U/S 25 4(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT: THE PETITIONER IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CARRYING ON BU SINESS IN CLOTH. IT WAS CONSTITUTED BY A DEED OF PARTNERSHIP EXECUTED ON 1. 4.2004 BY AND BETWEEN (1) SRI S.RAVINDER (2) SRI S. VAMSHI KRISH NA (3) SMT. S. KARUNA AND (4) SMT. S. MANASA. THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND TH E PARTNERS OF THE FIRM ARE ASSESSED TO TAX THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE APPEN DED BELOW. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INC OME ADMITTING AN INCOME OF RS.6 488/-. FOR THIS PURPOSE THE CLOSING STOCK WAS ARRIVED AT RS.16 96 914/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONDUCTED SUR VEY U/S 133A OF THE I.T ACT ON 31.8.2006. AT THE TIME OF SURVEY THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE OF STOCKS AV AILABLE AT THE PREMISES. 2 M.A. NO. 14/HYD/2017 THE ASSESSING OFFICE THEREAFTER RECORDED A STATEME NT OF 'THE PARTNER SRI S. RAVINDER. SRI S. RAVINDER ACCEPTED THAT HE WOULD AD MIT ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.30 LAKHS TOWARDS EXCESS STOCK IN THE A SSESSMENT OF THE PARTNERS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXES WOUL D BE PAID IN THE NAMES OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM. AN EXTRACT OF TH E ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.28 AT PAGE NO.47 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: '28 Q.: DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE? A. YES. AS STATED EARLIER THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN SOCK POSITION M/S. MAMATHA SILK CENTRE TO THE EXTENT OF APPROXIMATELY RS.30 LAKHS AS EXCESS STOCK. FURTHER AS OF NOW I AM ABLE TO EXPLA IN MY SOURCES OF INVESTMENT IN M/S SRI MAMATA LODGE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.L8.LAKHS ONLY AS AGAINST MY APPROXIMATE INVESTMENT OF RS.25 LAKHS ON LY TO COVER ALL THESE ISSUES AND ANY OTHER ISSUE WHICH MAY CROP UP. I HAV E ALREADY OFFERED TO PAY ADDITIONAL TAXES ON RS.15 LAKHS AS THE DAY OF S URVEY I.E 31.8.2006. I WILL PAY THESE TAXES IN THE NAMES OF MYSELF AND M Y FAMILY MEMBERS AFTER ASCERTAINING THE EXACT INCOMES I WILL FILE RE TURNS OF INCOME ACCORDINGLY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY PROVIDE ME SHELTER AND IMMUNITY FROM PENALTIES AND PROSECUTION AS I AM VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSING INCOME OF MYSELF AND MY FAMILY MEMBERS'. 2. CONSEQUENT TO THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE I.T. ACT THE PARTNERS FILED REVISED RETURNS OF INCOME ADMITTING ADDITIONAL INCOMES ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 2006-07. THE DETAILS OF T HE INCOMES ORIGINALLY ADMITTED AND THE INCOMES ADMITTED IN THE REVISED RETURNS OF INCOME ARE AS UNDER: S. NO NAME OF THE PARTNER ASST. YEAR INCOME ADMITTED IN THE ORIGINAL ROI RS. INCOME ADMITTED IN THE REVISED ROI RS. ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED RS. 01 S. RAVINDER 2005-06 2006-07 1 04 000 1 06 000 10 55 100 12 50 030 9 51 100 11 44 030 02 S. KARUNA 2005-06 2006-07 1 05 300 5 907 6 40 350 7 73 333 5 35 050 7 67 426 03 S. MANASA 2005-06 2006-07 1 05 200 30 700 3 71 805 4 76 000 2 66 650 4 45 300 04 S. VAMSHIKRISHNA 2005-06 2006-07 1 00 700 84 347 2 21 050 3 15 630 1 20 350 2 31 283 TOTAL: 44 61 189 3. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE TABLE THE PARTNER S HAVE ACCEPTED AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 44 61 189/- AND PAID TAXES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07. 4. IN THE MEAN TIME THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETE D ASSESSMENT OF THE PETITIONER U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT ON 24.12.2009 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS 49 11 590/- WHILE DOING SO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WORKED 3 M.A. NO. 14/HYD/2017 OUT THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCKS AT RS 47 05 008/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME ADMITTED BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.6 9 OF THE LT ACT WITHOUT GIVING CREDIT TO THE INCOME ADMITTED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PARTNERS. 5. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE PARTNERS CONTEN DED THAT THE REVISED RETURNS OF INCOME ARE NOT VALID AND THEREFORE THE TAX PAID BE REFUNDED. THE PETITIONER ALSO CONTESTED THE INCOME OFFERED ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE STOCKS. THE HON'BLE ITAT DECIDED ALL THE APPEALS AS UNDER. 6. IN THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER IN ITA NO.1381/HYD /2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE DIFFERENCE IN THE STOC KS IS DETERMINED AT RS.47 05 008/-. THIS AMOUNT IS ARRIVED AT WITHOUT G IVING CREDIT TO THE INCOME ADMITTED BY THE PARTNERS. 7. IN THE CASE OF THE PARTNERS THE HON'BLE ITAT CO NFIRMED THE INCOME AS ADMITTED IN THE REVISED RETURNS OF INCOME AS MENTIO NED IN THE ABOVE TABLE. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF T HE PARTNERSHIP FIRM THE ENTIRE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE OF THE STOCKS ARRIVE D AT IS ADDED WHEREAS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE STOCKS AS ADMITTED IN THE ASS ESSMENT OF THE PARTNERS IS ALSO ADDED. THEREFORE THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUB MITS THAT TO THE EXTENT OF ADMISSION MADE BY THE PARTNERS IN THE REVISED RE TURNS OF INCOME TOWARDS DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE OF STOCKS IS TAXED TWICE. THEREFORE THE PETITIONER PRAYS THE HON'BLE ITAT TO CONSIDER THE A BOVE FACTS AND MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO.1381/HYD/2013 DATED 14.9 .2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 BY PASSING AN ORDER U/S 254 (2) OF THE I.T ACT. 2. LD. COUNSEL REITERATING THE ABOVE SUBMITTED THAT THE PARTNERS HAVE OFFERED INCOMES IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL HAN DS ALSO WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT AND ACCORDINGLY THE EXCESS STOCK DETERMINED IN THE FIRMS HAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED. LD. COUNSEL WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED WHETHER THE CONTENTI ON WAS RAISED AT ANY POINT OF TIME BEFORE THE AO/CIT(A) OR EV EN BEFORE THE ITAT. IT WAS FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT AT THE TIME THIS APPEAL W AS BEING CONSIDERED THE APPEALS OF PARTNERS WERE ALSO PENDING . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PARTNERS EVEN THOUGH FILED RETURNS CONTE STED THE ADMISSION OF INCOMES AND ACCORDINGLY AT THAT TIME NO TELESCOPIC BENEFIT WAS ASKED. NOW THOSE PARTNERS APP EALS ARE DISMISSED AND THE INCOMES OFFERED WERE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL HANDS THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON WAS 4 M.A. NO. 14/HYD/2017 PREFERRED SO AS TO EXCLUDE THE AMOUNTS TO THE EXTENT OF ADDITIONS CONFIRMED IN THE INDIVIDUAL HANDS. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO ENTERTAIN THIS PETITION. FIRST OF A LL THE GROUNDS AS RAISED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS FORUM WERE ADJUDICATED IN THE ORDER. THE PRESENT CONTENTIONS RAISED BY ASSESS EE ARE NOT ARISING EITHER OUT OF THE ORDERS OF AO OR CIT(A) OR OU T OF GROUNDS OR SUBMISSIONS RAISED BEFORE THIS FORUM. HENCE A N EW CONTENTION WHICH IS NOT BORNE OUT OF RECORD CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD U/S. 254(2). MOREOVER AS SEE N FROM THE PETITION ITSELF THE INCOMES OFFERED BY THE PARTNERS PERTA IN TO AYS. 2005-06 AND 2006-07 THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH EXCESS STOCK WAS CONSIDERED WAS FOR THE AY. 2007-08. FURTHER THERE SEEMS TO BE INVESTMENTS BY THE PARTNERS IN M/S. SRI MAMATA LODGE. WHY THE PARTNERS HAVE ADMITTED INCOMES IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY IN DIFFERENT YEARS COULD NOT BE A SCERTAINED AS THOSE FACTS ARE NOT BEFORE THE ITAT AT THE TIME OF DISPOSA L OF APPEAL. IT MAY BE THAT THOSE PARTNERS MAY HAVE INVESTED FUNDS SEPARATELY. THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THE INCO MES ADMITTED BY THE PARTNERS AND THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND IN THE FIRM. THE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BOTH ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ALSO ON PRINCIPLES OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY THE PETITION IS RE JECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH NOVEMBER 2017 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED 17 TH NOVEMBER 2017 TNMM 5 M.A. NO. 14/HYD/2017 COPY TO : 1. MAMATHA SILK CENTRE SURYAPET. C/O. SRI S. RAMA RAO ADVOCATE FLAT NO. 102 SHRIYAS ELEGANCE ROAD NO. 9 HIMAYAT NAGAR HYDERABAD. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER SURYAPET. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-VI HYDERABAD. 4. CIT-VI HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.