9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2020 (11) TMI 448 - ITAT MUMBAI ]. Tribunal while disposing off the appeal in the case of Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. had ultimately remanded the issue to the file of the ld. AO for the purpose of quantification of undisclosed income on the basis of incriminating materials / evidences and examine the availability of cash in the group as a whole. Revenue had preferred this Miscellaneous Application on 20/08/2020, on which date the order of the Tribunal in the case of Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd., had already been passed and the prayer of the revenue that, appeal in the case of Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd., had not attained finality is found to be factually incorrect. Hence, we hold that the prayer of the revenue does not fall within the ambit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,00,000/-. (iii) Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A). the Revenue filed appeal to the ITAT challenging the CIT(A)'s direction to delete the addition of ₹ 8.70 crores. On the other hand, the assessee filed Cross Objection against the Revenue's appeal. The assessee in its cross objection has raised the following ground :- On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, theLd.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to the extent of ₹ 1,39,20,000/- by applying gross profit rate of 16% on alleged unaccounted receipt of ₹ 8,70,00,000/-, as alleged unaccounted profit earned by the appellant, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case . (iv) The Hon'ble ITAT noted in para 2 of its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it did pass on 09.10.2019, In the said order, the ITAT held that para 6 of its previous order dated 10.07.2019 to be read as under: - 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas cross objection of the assessee is also dismissed . 4. It is to mention here that the Hon'ble ITAT vide its Corrigendum Order dated 09.10.2019, has held that, ...we hold that para 6 of the order is to be read as under:- In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed 4.1 From the chronology of the facts discussed above, it is clear that the ITAT has allowed the appeal of the assessee by way of cross objection wherein it challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the addition to its tota ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-money amount ₹ 16,74,14,102/- (₹ 17,94,14,102 - ₹ 1,20,00,000) was added by the Assessing Officer. Further, this addition of ₹ 16,74,14,102/- was contested by M/s. Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. at Ld.CIT(A) and Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the assessing officer. Thereafter, M/s. Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. has filed the appeal against the order of Ld.CIT(A) in Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai, which is still pending. Thus, the issue has not reached finality. 6. Nowhere in the order of the Hon'ble ITAT, is there any discussion for deleting the addition of ₹ 1,39,20,000/-, However, as can be seen from para 5 of order dated 10.07.2019 and the Corrigendum order dated 09.10.2019, the Hon'ble ITAT has giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Ld.CIT(A) to the extent of ₹ 1,39,20,000/- on merits. 2. While deleting the addition made by the AO of ₹ 8.7 Crores, the Hon'ble ITAT has not considered the crucial fact that M/s. Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. has not offered the entire amount of on-money as its unaccounted income and the addition sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) in its case, has been contested by M/s. Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. and the same is pending before Hon'ble ITAT and therefore, finding of the AO has not reached finality. Accordingly, Hon'ble ITAT may reconsider its judgement . 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The basic facts of the issue in dispute are already recorded in the order passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purpose of quantification of undisclosed income on the basis of incriminating materials / evidences and examine the availability of cash in the group as a whole. We find that revenue had preferred this Miscellaneous Application on 20/08/2020, on which date the order of the Tribunal in the case of Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd., had already been passed and the prayer of the revenue that, appeal in the case of Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd., had not attained finality is found to be factually incorrect. Hence, we hold that the prayer of the revenue does not fall within the ambit of any mistake apparent from record within the meaning of Section 254(2) of the Act warranting any rectification. 5. In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
