RAMCHANDRA MARUTI MOHITE,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH, ‘B’ PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S. SYAL, VP :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order
dt. 09-03-2022 passed by the CIT(A), Pune-11 u/s.250 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation
to the assessment year 2012-13.
There is no appearance from the assessee despite numerous
opportunities granted. As such, we are, proceeding to dispose of the
appeal ex parte qua the assessee.
Ground No.1 is against not allowing set off of business loss
amounting to Rs.58,19,713/-.
2 ITA No.461/PUN/2022 Ramchandra Maruti Mohite
After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the relevant material on
record, it appears that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not grant the
set off of the loss against the addition of Rs.3.89 crore. The ld.
CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the assessment record and allow
the set off as per the provisions of the Act. Section 251(1) of the
Act does not empower the CIT(A) to send the matter back to the
AO for reconsideration. He can only confirm, reduce, enhance or
annul the assessment. In the light of this statutory position, the
impugned order, sending the matter back to the AO, cannot be
countenanced. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and
direct the ld. CIT(A) to decide this issue himself. He is at liberty to
call for any remand report from the AO in this regard, if warranted.
The only other ground is against the confirmation of addition
of Rs.3.89 crore. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the
assessee was subjected to search operation u/s.132 of the Act on
25-08-2011. During the course of search, the assessee surrendered a
sum of Rs.3.89 crore to cover up the discrepancies in the seized
papers etc. However, while filing the return, the said income was
not offered for taxation. The AO made the addition, which came to
be sustained in the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has
approached the Tribunal.
3 ITA No.461/PUN/2022 Ramchandra Maruti Mohite
Having regard to the facts of the case, it is seen that the
assessee himself made a surrender of Rs.3.89 crore during the
course of search. In the statement recorded u/s.132(4), the assessee
offered the amount in question: “To cover up the discrepancies
noticed in the sized papers, i.e. on account of excess/bogus claim of
work expenditure etc.” Statement u/s.132(4) has a binding force
and can be treated as an evidence in the assessment proceedings.
Since the assessee surrendered such an amount in his statement
u/s.132(4) but did not include in the return of income, in our
considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the
addition made on this score. We, therefore, countenance the
impugned order on this score.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical
purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 23rd August, 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 23rd August, 2023 सतीश
4 ITA No.461/PUN/2022 Ramchandra Maruti Mohite
आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��थ� / The respondent 2. The Pr.CIT(Central), Pune 3. 4. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 5.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
Date 1. Draft dictated on 22-08-2023 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 23-08-2023 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before JM the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by JM Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *
