Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Shri Bishwanath Garodia, Kolkata vs D.C.I.T., Cental Circle 3(3) Kolkata, ... on 24 May, 2017
M . A . N o. 2 0 / KO L / 2 0 1 7
( i n I . T. A . N o 8 5 6 / KO L . / 2 0 1 6 )
Assessment year: 2007-2008
Page 1 of 3
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
KOLKATA 'B' BENCH, KOLKATA
Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member
and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member
M.A. No. 20/KOL/2017
(arising out of I.T.A. No. 856/KOL/ 2016)
Assessment Year: 2007-2008
Shri Bishwanath Garodia,....................................................Applicant
9, Dover Park, 2 n d Floor,
Kolkata-700 019
[PAN: ADGPG 4384 E]
-Vs.-
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,........ .....................Respondent
Central Ci rcle-3 (3), Kolkata,
Aayakar Bhawan Po orva,
110, Shantipally,
Kolkata-700 017
Appearances by:
Shri D.S. Damle, FCA, for the assessee
Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, D.R., for the Department
Date of concluding th e hearing : May 12, 2017
Date of pronouncing the order : May 24, 2017
O R D E R
Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, A.M. :-
By this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee is seeking rectification of mistakes alleged to have crept in the order of the Tribunal dated September 21, 2016 while disposing of the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2007-08 being ITA No. 856/KOL/2016.
2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As stated by the assessee in the present Miscellaneous Application and further reiterated by his ld. counsel at the time of hearing before us, the issue raised in Ground No. 10 of the assessee's appeal being ITA No. 856/KOL/2016 relating to addition of Rs.7,077/- made on account of alleged difference in cost of gold was argued by the ld. authorized representative of the assessee and there appears to be M . A . N o. 2 0 / KO L / 2 0 1 7 ( i n I . T. A . N o 8 5 6 / KO L . / 2 0 1 6 ) Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 2 of 3 a mistake in paragraph no. 15 of the order of the Tribunal in dismissing the said ground treating the same as not pressed on the ground that no material or specific contention was raised on behalf of the assessee in support of the said issue. On the perusal of the relevant portion of the Log Book, we find merit in this stand of the assessee. It is noted that the addition of Rs.7,077/- made on account of alleged difference in cost of gold was specifically argued on behalf of the assessee by contending inter alia that the said addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of material already available on record and the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. This proposition was argued on behalf of the assessee in detail in support of the main issue involved in the appeal of the assessee relating to the addition made on the basis of transactions reflected in the Bank account of the assessee with HSBC, Geneva and after discussing the same elaborately, it was held by the Tribunal that the additions made to the total income of the assessee on account of the income arising from the relevant transactions reflected in HSBC account were not sustainable in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search to support and substantiate the same. Since the same proposition was sought to be applied by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the context of issue involved in Ground No. 10 relating to the addition of Rs.7,077/- made on account of alleged difference in cost of gold by pointing out that there was no incriminating material found during the course of search to support and substantiate the said addition and nothing was argued by the ld. D.R. in this context at the time of hearing of the appeal of the assessee to show that there was such incriminating material found during the course of search, we find that there is a mistake in the order of the Tribunal in deciding the said issue against the assessee vide paragraph no. 15 by treating the same as not pressed on wrong presumption that no specific contention was raised on behalf of the assessee in support of the said issue. As the said mistake is clearly apparent from record, we rectify the same by deleting the existing paragraph no. 15 of the order of the Tribunal and substituting the same with the following:-
"As regards the other issue raised by the assessee in Ground No. 10 of its appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 being ITA No. 856/KOL/2016 relating to the addition of Rs.7,077/- made on account of alleged difference in cost of gold, the ld. counsel for the assesee has contended that this M . A . N o. 2 0 / KO L / 2 0 1 7 ( i n I . T. A . N o 8 5 6 / KO L . / 2 0 1 6 ) Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 3 of 3 addition is also not made on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search and since the ld. D.R. has not been able to dispute or controvert this position, we delete the addition of Rs.7,077/- made by the Assessing Officer on this issue and allow Ground No. 10 of the assessee's appeal".
3. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on May 24, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (P.M. Jagtap)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Kolkata, the 24 t h day of May, 2017
Copies to : (1) Shri Bishwanath Garodia,
9, Dover Park, 2 n d Floor,
Kolkata-700 019
(2) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Ci rcle-3 (3), Kolkata,
Aayakar Bhawan Po orva,
110, Shantipally,
Kolkata-700 017
(3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata,
(4) Commissio ner of Income Tax- ,
(5) The Depart ment al Represent ative
(6) Guard File
By order
Senior Private Secretary,
Head of Office/DDO,
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Kolkata Benches, Kolkata
Laha/Sr. P.S.