Sh. Kewal Krishan Garg,, Bathinda v. The Income-tax Officer, Bathinda

MA 26/ASR/2012 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 2620924 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AIMPG5702D
Bench Amritsar
Appeal Number MA 26/ASR/2012
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Kewal Krishan Garg,, Bathinda
Respondent The Income-tax Officer, Bathinda
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 05-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 05-07-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 05-07-2013
Next Hearing Date 05-07-2013
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 09-07-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 24(ASR)/ 2012 (IN I.T.A. NO. 386 (ASR)/2010) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 PAN: AIMPG5702D INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SMT. USHA GARG WARD 1(1) BHATINDA H. NO. 138 MODEL TOWN BHATINDA (APPELLANT) (APPLICANT/RESPONDENT) WITH M.A. NO. 25(ASR)/ 2012 (IN I.T.A. NO 387(ASR)/2010) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 PAN: AAGHK3245M INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. KEWAL KRISHAN GARG HUF WARD 1(1) BHATINDA H. NO. 138 MODEL TOWN BHATINDA (APPELLANT) (APPLICANT/RESPONDENT) WITH M.A. NO. 26 (ASR)/ 2012 (IN I.T.A. NO. 388(ASR)/2010) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 PAN: ACLPK6515F INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. KEWAL KRISHAN GARG WARD 1(1) BHATINDA H. NO. 138 MODEL TOWN BHATINDA (APPELLANT) (APPLICANT/RESPONDENT) APPLICANT/RESPONDENT BY: SH. J.S. BHASIN ADVOCAT E DEPARTMENT BY: SH. AMRIK CHAND DR 2 DATE OF HEARING: 05.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05.07.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1) THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED THE PRESENT THREE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2 012 PASSED BY THIS BENCH IN I.T.A. NO. 386 387 & 388(ASR)/2010. 2) AT THE TIME OF HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES STATED THAT THIS BENCH IN PARA 2 OF THE AFORESAID ORDER H AS MENTIONED THAT THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT D ISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THIS OBSERVATION OF THE BENCH IS APPARENT LY ERRONEOUS SINCE THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REVENUE ON SEVERAL FACTS LEADING TO PRESENT LITIGATION. THE VERY FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE S ARE CIVIL CONTRACTORS WITH TURNOVER BELOW RS. 40 LACS AND HENCE LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO DISPUTE BY R EVENUE. ON THIS BASIC PREMISE THE OBSERVATION OF THE BENCH AS TO UNDISPU TED FACTS GOES WRONG. SECONDLY THE CONTROVERSY SOUGHT TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE BENCH WAS WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68/69 OF THE ACT WOULD HAVE ANY SAY ONCE THE INCOME IS ESTIMATED IN TERMS OF SECTION 44 AD OF THE ACT. THIS ISSUE HAS REMAINED WHOLLY UNADDRESSED AND UNDECIDED IN THE ENCLOSED 3 ORDER OF THE BENCH. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ISSU E INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 2 THAT WHETHER ONCE N.P. @ 8% WAS APPLIED UNDER SEC TION 44AD OF THE ACT NO FURTHER ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE ASSES SMENT AGAIN THIS ISSUE HAS REMAINED UNANSWERED. 3) LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES FURTHER STATED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUNDS NO 3 REGARDING THE CONTROVERSY SOUGHT TO BE RESOLVED WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN HOLDIN G THE INCOME RETURNED BY ASSESSEES AS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINES S AND PROFESSION AS AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO FOUND NO ANSWER FROM THE HON'BL E BENCH. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE CITATION CITED BY THE ASSESSEES HAS NOT BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE BENCH AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE ORDER. LASTLY HE REQUESTED THAT THESE MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE ORDER PAS SED BY THIS BENCH MAY BE RECTIFIED BY RECALLING THE ORDER. 4) ON THE CONTRARY LEARNED D.R. STATED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THIS BENCH THEREFORE THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES M AY BE DISMISSED. 5) WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US ESPECIALLY THE ORDER PASSED BY T HIS BENCH DATED 18.04.2012 AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CONTENTI ONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENT 4 ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEES WANT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2013 PASSED BY THIS BENCH WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW BECAUSE THIS BENCH HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE AC T. 6) AS REGARD TO THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES REGARDING THE NON-ADJUDICATION OF THE ISS UES INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MAIN APPEALS I.E. I.T.A. NOS. 386 387 & 388(ASR)/2010 HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REV ENUE AND REVENUE HAS RAISED FIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. WHEN THE ASSESSE ES HAVE NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION FOR NON-ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUNDS THEN WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RAISE THIS OBJECT ION BECAUSE THE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT FILED ANY CROSS-APPEALS OR CROSS-OBJECTION S AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 7) KEEPING IN VIEW THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD S ENT NOTICES BY REGISTERED POST/SPEED POST TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR GETTING CONFIRMATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT WHICH REMAI NED UNDELIVERED WITH THE POSTAL REMARKS NO SUCH COMPANY/NO SUCH FIRM ON THE ADDRESS WRITTEN/INCOMPLETE ADDRESS ETC. RETURN TO THE SEND ER.. IT IS ALSO NOT DENIED BY THE ASSESSEES THAT THESE UNDELIVERED LETT ERS WERE ALSO SHOWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEES AND THE ASSE SSEES WERE ALSO 5 REQUESTED TO PROVIDE CONFIRMED COPIES OF THE ACCOUN T OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS IN ORDER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION DESPITE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEES THE ASSESSEES FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS RAISED AS WELL AS CONFIRMED COP IES OF ACCOUNT SUNDRY CREDITORS/COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS OF THE PRECEDING YEARS. 8) KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE T HIS BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 18.04.2012 HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEES TO PROVIDE FRESH AND CORRECT ADDRESSES OF THE CREDITOR S IN DISPUTE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING THE OPENING BALANCE TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEES DURING THE YEAR FOR THE PURCHASE OF M ATERIAL AND PAYMENTS MADE BALANCE OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR. T HIS BENCH HAS CLEARLY ASKED LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES TO POINT OU T ANY MISTAKE IN THE FINDING OF THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2012 PASSED BY THI S BENCH WHICH THEY HAVE READ EACH AND EVERY LINE OF THE FINDING BUT C OULD NOT POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE FINDING OF THE ORDER. 9) KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPL AINED ABOVE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EES FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2012 PASSED BY THI S BENCH. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS ALL THE THREE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS . 6 10) IN THE RESULT THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT IONS NO. 24 25 & 26 (ASR)/ 2012 FILED IN I.T.A. NOS. 386 387 & 38 8(ASR)/2010 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH JULY 2013 SD/./ SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5 TH JULY 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEES: SMT. USHA GARG H. NO. 138 MODEL TO WN BHATINDA 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) BHATINDA 3. THE CIT(A) BHATINDA 4. THE CIT BHATINDA 5. THE SR DR I.T.A.T. ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.