DR ANJALI A. MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 11(2), MUMBAI

4.The assessee again preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It was argued that there was not a single instance where the AO had been able to point out any receipt over and above what had been declared by the assessee,that there was not an instance to show that bifurcations claimed by the assessee in three hands (i.e. the assessee ,her husband and the partnership) incorrect,that the AO had not pointed out any defects in the books of accounts of the assessee, that the revenue authorities had not pointed out any mistake in the reconciliation statements and charts filed before them. It was also stated that the assessee was interested in bringing an end to the litigation,that the matter was very old, that a small addition could be sustained in order to meet any eventuality of any income escaping assessment on account of any error in reconciliations.The Tribunal adjourned the case for one day. During the next hearing, the authorised representative of the assessee, after consultation with her, proposed to retain an addition not exceeding Rs. 2 lakhs in the hands of both the assessees.Vide its order dated 14/09/2016, the Tribunal confirmed the addition to the tune of Rs.7 lakhs as undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee as against the addition of Rs. 12.19 lakhs made by the FAA.The assessee filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal and the order was recalled.In its order, dated 06/03/2017 (MA/386/Mum/2016) the Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed an MA contenting that the addition of Rs.7.00 lakhs was on higher side, that there was a mistake of fact in understanding by the Tribunal of the offer of settlement/concession made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee which was to 7617&7618-Malpanis restrict the sustaining of addition to the tune of Rs.2.00 lakhs, that the assessee had a good case on merits,that the assessee was requesting to restrict the addition to Rs.2.00 lakhs or else to recall the orders. Accordingly, the orders were recalled by the Tribunal in both the cases. 5.During the course of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative narrated the facts of the case and stated that the assessee had agreed for addition of Rs. 2 lakhs to bring an end the litigation of a matter which was pending for a long period, that the AO/FAA had not pointed out any discrepancy in the books of accounts maintained by her, that the in its order had observed that the assessee had agreed for addition of Rs. 2 lakhs only. The departmental representative stated that matter could be decided on merits. 6.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that while adjudicating the miscellaneous application, filed by the assessee, the Tribunal had observed that the assessee had agreed that addition to her income should be restricted it to the extent of Rs.2 lakhs,that the offer was made after the authorised representative had sought time for one day to discuss the issue with the assessee,that the AO/FAA had gone through the charts/ reconsideration statements filed by her and had not pointed any defect in the manner the accounts were maintained. The matter is pending from the day when a survey action was carried out at the business premises of the assessee.The assessee, on its own, had offered that ad hoc addition could be made so that the litigation comes to an end. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,we are of the opinion that in the interest of Justice addition should be restricted to Rs. 2 lakhs. Effective ground of appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee,in part. ITA/7618/Mum/2013. 7.Facts in case of the husband of the assessee are identical to the facts of her case. Therefore following the earlier order,we hold that addition of Rs. 2 lakhs should be made in the hands of Dr.Aniruddha Malpani also. A result appeals filed by both the assessees stand partly allowed. फलतःदोन� िनधा�रितय� �ारा दािखल क� गई अपील� अंशतः मंजूर क� जाती ह . Order pronounced in the open court on 24th ,May, 2017. आदेश क� घोषणा खुले !यायालय म� "दनांक 24 मई ,2017 को क� गई । Sd/- Sd/- (अमरजीत �सह / Amarjit Singh ) (राजे�� / Rajendra) �याियक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक/Dated : 24.05.2017. Jv.Sr.PS. आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत 1.Appellant /अपीलाथ$

2. Respondent /%&यथ$ 3

7617&7618-Malpanis