Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore
The Acit, 1(1), Ujjain vs Shri Mukesh Ranka, Ujjain on 31 May, 2018
M.A. 98/2016
Mukesh Ranka
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before Shri Kul Bharat, Hon'ble Judicial Member and
Shri Manish Borad, Hon'ble Accountant Member
M.A. No. 98/Ind/2016
Arising out of ITA No. 27/Ind/2015
A.Y. 2006-07
DCIT 1(1)
Ujjain ::: Appellant
Vs
Mukesh Ranka
Ujjain ::: Respondent
Appellant by Shri K.G. Goyal
Respondent by Shri S.S. Deshpande
Date of hearing 25.5.2018
Date of pronouncement 31.5.2018
O R D E R
PER SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM
This miscellaneous application filed by the revenue arises out of the order of the Tribunal dated 21.12.2016 in ITA No. 27/Ind/2015 for the assessment year 2006-07 dismissing revenue's appeal on account of low tax effect in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. Through this miscellaneous application the 1 M.A. 98/2016 Mukesh Ranka revenue' contention is that there was audit objection in the case of the assessee and it, therefore, fell within the exceptions provided in the above CBDT Circular and as such the revenue's appeal has wrongly been dismissed by the Tribunal.
2. The learned DR placed before us the copy of the audit objection in relation to M/s Parshwanath Construction which is a partnership firm and the assessee is one of the partners. It was contended that there was "unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act of Rs. 50 lacs and the said investment was alleged to have been made by the assessee during the assessment year 2006-07 which was thereafter shown as capital contribution in the partnership firm during the assessment year 2007-08 and the date of incorporation of the partnership firm is 14.7.2006. On the strength of these facts, the learned DR prayed for recalling of the order of the Tribunal for adjudication on merits. 2 M.A. 98/2016 Mukesh Ranka
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee strongly objected the contention of the learned DR submitting that the alleged audit objection is in the name of the partnership firm and not the assessee and, therefore, the same is not applicable in the case of the assessee.
4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We have gone through the miscellaneous application as well as the note of the audit party raising objection about under-assessment of income at Rs. 50 lacs. We also find that this audit objection was in the name of the partnership firm M/s Parshwanath Construction. This partnership firm was incorporated on 14.7.2006. The audit objection is for unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act during the assessment year 2006-07. This fact is not disputed that the assessee is one of the partners of this firm and the alleged investment was made through him during the assessment year 2006-07 3 M.A. 98/2016 Mukesh Ranka which was introduced as capital in the partnership firm incorporated on 14.7.2006. In these circumstances, we find force in the contention of the learned DR that the audit objection in this case very much relates to the assessee. We, therefore, are of the view that there is an apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, recall the order of the Tribunal dated 21.12.2015 only with respect to the revenue's appeal in ITA No. 27/Ind/2015 with the direction to the registry to refix this appeal for hearing at its original number in due course of time and inform both the parties accordingly.
5. In the result, the revenue's miscellaneous application is allowed.
Pronounced in open Court on 31st May, 2018.
Sd/- sd/-
(KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
31 May, 2018
4
M.A. 98/2016
Mukesh Ranka
Dn/-
Copy to - Appellant/Respodent/Pr.CIT/CIT(A)/DR/Guard File By order Private Secretary 5