2014 (6) TMI 968 - AT - Income Tax

Unaccounted investment in land - Held that - It is seen that Assessee had purchased 6 plots of which 2 plots were from Mr. Intwala and 4 plots were from other parties. A.O had made the addition in respect of all the 6 plots based on the statement of Mr. Intwala. CIT(A) has granted relief in respect of plots that were purchased from other parties because there was no evidence for payment of on money. We find force in the submission of ld. A.R. that the examination of Mr. Intwala has no bearing on the Departmental appeal as its appeal was an independent appeal and was not directly connected with ground raised by Assessee in its appeal. We are therefore of the view that the appeal of Revenue was not required to be remitted to A.O and therefore remitting the Revenue s appeal was mistake apparent from record.

Summary

Issues involved: Request for recalling the Tribunal's order in ITA No. 3020/AHD/2009 for A.Y. 06-07 due to addition made by the A.O on unaccounted investment in land, CIT(A) granting partial relief, Assessee appealing before Hon'ble Tribunal, setting aside of the addition made by A.O based on a statement, Department filing an independent appeal, examination of a witness, and the remittance of the Revenue's appeal.

Analysis:

1. The Assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking the recall of the Tribunal's order in ITA No. 3020/AHD/2009 for A.Y. 06-07. The addition was made by the Assessing Officer (A.O) regarding unaccounted investment in land, leading to an appeal by the Assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who granted partial relief. Subsequently, the Assessee appealed before the Hon'ble Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the addition made by the A.O, directing the A.O to provide a copy of a statement and an opportunity for cross-examination. The Department also filed an independent appeal related to the addition deleted by CIT(A) concerning plots purchased from others based on a witness statement. The Assessee argued that the examination of the witness had no relevance to the Department's appeal, indicating an error in remitting the Revenue's appeal to the A.O.

2. The Departmental Representative (D.R.) contended that there was no apparent error on record and opposed the Assessee's prayer for recalling the order. Upon reviewing the A.O's and CIT(A)'s orders, it was observed that the Assessee had acquired 6 plots, 2 from a specific individual and 4 from other parties. The A.O's addition was based on the statement of the individual, while CIT(A) provided relief for plots purchased from other parties due to lack of evidence of on-money payment. The Tribunal agreed with the Assessee's argument that the examination of the individual had no relevance to the Department's independent appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that remitting the Revenue's appeal to the A.O was a mistake apparent from the record and amended the order in ITA No. 3020/AHD/2009, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.

3. The Tribunal allowed the MA, directing the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal in accordance with the findings. The order was pronounced in an Open Court on 27 - 06 - 2014, resolving the issues raised by the Assessee regarding the addition made by the A.O and the subsequent appeals and remittance decisions.