9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to as "Black Money Act"). In these applications, both the assessee's contend that there is a mistake apparent from the record in the order dated 02-11-2021 passed by the Tribunal in their respective hands separately. Since the facts relating to both the cases and since the alleged mistake pointed by both the assessee's is identical in nature, both these miscellaneous applications were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Both the assessee's as well as revenue had filed separate appeals before ITAT challenging the order dated 5th July, 2021 passed by the Ld CIT(A) under Black money Act in their respective hands for assessment year 2017-18. The present miscellaneous applications have been filed against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ITAT has taken the view that the Ld CIT(A) has granted relief on the basis of explanations given by the assessee's, which were not substantiated on the basis of any documents. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee's herein had furnished a detailed written submission on 26-10-2021 before the Tribunal explaining that the above said amount of US$ 32,13,307.60 represents maturity of investments made earlier. He submitted that the above said written submissions were furnished as per the direction given by the Tribunal on an earlier date. It was mentioned in the written submissions that the above said explanation of the assessee is supported by the bank statements and investment portfolio statements, which were provided by the revenue only. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. Further, the loans were short term. The assessee would either repay loan out of the call deposit or take a fresh loan to pay the earlier loan. Further, the assessee would make investment out of the loans taken from banks or out of the call deposit. As a result, the assessee would earn interest on investment and profit on sale of investment. Similarly, the assessee would pay interest on loans or incur loss on sale of investment." The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee's have given detailed explanations with regard to the amount of US$32,13,307.60 found credited on 22-02-2010 in the bank account no.167573 of "Gold Jewel Corporation". The explanations so given earlier are reproduced in paragraphs 11 to 22 of the written submissions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier deposits and hence there is no requirement of assessing the same again. According to the assessee's, they have attached relevant statements of banks and portfolio investments in order to substantiate the above said claim. The Ld A.R further submitted that the said statements were supplied by the revenue only and the proceedings under Black money Act were initiated on the basis of very same statements only. According to the assessee's, the Ld CIT(A) had granted relief to the assessee's on the basis of very same information and explanations. However, the detailed explanations so furnished by way of written submissions were not considered by the Tribunal at all and hence the Tribunal was constrained to observe in paragraph 62 of its order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute, viz., that the distribution fee paid by it to the Associated Enterprises are not payments in the nature of royalty, but restored the matter to the file of AO/TPO. This is so even after recording the petitioner's submissions. Hence the assessee filed a rectification application u/s 254(2) of the Act, which came to be rejected. Hence the assessee filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court has, inter alia, held that "non-consideration of the basic submission made at the hearing as recorded, is clearly a mistake apparent from the record and hence the Tribunal ought to have allowed the rectification application dated... and recalled the order dated....for fresh consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , inter-alia, taking into account the material and case laws which has been already filed by the petitioner's during the hearing leading to the order dated 13th February, 2015. 7. In view of the peculiar facts of the present case, we are not only setting aside the impugned order dated 4th May 2018 but also the order dated 13th February, 2018 to the extent it dismissed the petitioner's Appeal before it. This for the reason that, we find the order dated 13th February, 2015 in the context of material available on record to be a nonspeaking order as it gives no reasons to reject the appeal in the context of the decisions admittedly relied upon at the hearing by the petitioners." 7. We notice both the above cited decision of Hon'ble jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
