ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI V. STARLITE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

ITA 129/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3423 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VISHWAS JADHAV
• Assessee Lawyers: V IRAG H SHAH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Accommodation entries; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BE NCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / I .TA NOS. 129 & 126/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 THE ACIT 25(2), C-11, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400 051 / VS. M/S. STARLITE ENTERPRISES, 11, GROUND FLOOR, PANCHARATNA APARTMENT, CHAMUNDA CIRCLE, BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI-400 092 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO.AAAFS 5693Q ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI VISHWAS JADHAV / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VIRAG H. SHAH / DATE OF HEARING :15.03.2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :18.05.2016 / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-35, MUMBAI DATED 3.10.2012 PERTAINI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING TH E ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AND LABOUR CHARGES. ITA NOS. 126 & 129/M/2013 126 & 129/M/2013BBB 2 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RET URN OF INCOME ON 17.9.2008 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 19,43,169/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 41,95,897/- ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATED AND BOGUS PURCHASES. THE AS SESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED LABOUR CHARGES OF RS. 4,87,504/- TR EATING THEM AS BOGUS. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOT ICES U/S. 133(6) WERE ISSUED TO SIX PARTIES. THE WARD INSPECTOR SUB MITTED REPORT STATING THAT OUT OF SIX, FIVE PARTIES ARE NOT AVAIL ABLE IN THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SU BMIT DETAILS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THOSE PARTIES ALONGW ITH STOCK REGISTER, DELIVERY CHALLANS ETC. HOWEVER, NOBODY A TTENDED NOR PRODUCE ANY DETAILS AS CALLED FOR INCLUDING THE PAR TIES FOR VERIFICATION. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASED CLAIMED. THUS, HE DISALLOWED THE PURCHASES AS BOGUS. 3.1. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR DE TAILS OF PURCHASES FROM M/S. SHREENATH ELECTRICALS AND SHRI MOHAMED KA SHIM AND ASKED TO PRODUCE THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE PARTIES . THOUGH ASSESSEE PRODUCED DETAILS, PARTIES WERE NOT PRODUCE D FOR VERIFICATION. THE INSPECTOR IN HIS REPORT SUBMITTED THAT NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 133(6) TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN RESPECT OF MS. ANITA GIRISH AKOLA, PROP. M/S. SHREENATH ELECTRICALS AND SHRI MOHAMED KASHIM ARE N OT AVAILABLE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS. 126 & 129/M/2013 126 & 129/M/2013BBB 3 COULD NOT PRODUCE THESE PARTIES, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DISALLOWED THE LABOUR CHARGES PAID TO THESE PARTIES ARE TREATED AS BOGUS. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THESE ADDITION S CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DETAILS FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THESE PARTIES AND CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED COMPLETE DETAILS REGARDING PURCHASES AND LABOUR CHARGES INCLUDING NAME OF THE PERSON IN WHOSE NAME THE CHEQUES WERE CLEARED AS PER THE BANK STATE MENT. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY S UPPORTING THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITS THAT LD . CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE BOGUS PURCHASES AND BOGUS LABOUR CHARG ES INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 133(6) WERE NOT R ECEIVED BY THE PARTIES AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE PARTI ES FOR VERIFICATION. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF BOGUS PURCHASES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SA LES TAX DEPARTMENT CARRIED OUT INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES WITH R ESPECT TO THESE PARTIES AND PROVED THAT THESE PARTIES ARE INDULGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ONLY AND NOT IN REAL BUSINESS . THEREFORE, HE SUBMITS THAT DISALLOWANCES ARE RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT AS SESSEE FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THESE PARTI ES. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON 4.11.2010, ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED VARIOUS INFORMATION SUCH AS DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, DE TAILS OF PARTY-WISE , ITEM-WISE PURCHASES ABOVE RS. 20,000/-, NAME, ADDRE SS AND PAN OF ITA NOS. 126 & 129/M/2013 126 & 129/M/2013BBB 4 THE CONCERNED PARTIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITS THAT THEREAFTER SHOWCAUSE NOTICE DATED 24.11.2010 WAS IS SUED REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE PARTI ES, COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME AND BANK STATEMENT OF ALL THE PARTIES IN PERSON. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE DATED 6.12.2010, REQUIS ITE INFORMATION HAS BEEN FILED ALONGWITH COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF AC COUNTS, COPY OF PAN CARD, COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS ETC. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SI MPLY GONE BY THE INSPECTORS REPORT WHICH STATED THAT THE PARTIES AR E NOT AVAILABLE AT THE ADDRESSES GIVEN. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITS THAT NOT MUCH DILIGENT EFFORTS HAVE BEEN PUT IN BY THE I NSPECTOR TO FIND AND SERVE THE NOTICE AS IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE I NSPECTORS REPORT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE PARTICULARS SPECIFIED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO DISCHARGE ITS OBLIGATION BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER BOTHERED TO VERIFY VARIOUS ASPECTS SUCH AS MODE OF PAYMENTS, EX ISTENCE OF PAN AND VAT NO., NATURE OF ITEMS AND ITS CONSUMPTION ET C. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT EXCEP T JUMPING TO THE CONCLUSION MAINLY BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE ADDRES S OF THE CREDITORS ARE NOT VERIFIABLE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT E STABLISHED THAT SUCH PURCHASES ARE EITHER BOGUS OR INFLATED. THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE FIRM HAS MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE SAID ACCOUNTS ARE SUBJECT MATTER OF AUDIT U/S. 44AB WHERE INDEPENDENT, QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND THE AUDITORS HAVE NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECTS THEREFORE HE SUBMI TS THAT THE PURCHASES AND THE LABOUR PAYMENTS CANNOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE INSPECTOR HAS GIVEN A REPORT STA TING THAT PARTIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ITA NOS. 126 & 129/M/2013 126 & 129/M/2013BBB 5 ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT CONFIRMATIONS OF THE PARTIES ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE-40 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND FURTHER HE SUBMITS TH AT AT PAGE 50 ONWARDS THE PAN, ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND DEMAND DR AFTS ARE AVAILABLE. IN RESPECT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE DEPOSITIONS RECORDED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES DURING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES WITH RESPE CT TO THESE PARTIES TO PROVE THAT THESE PARTIES ARE INDULGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ONLY AND NOT IN REAL BUSINESS , THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, NOWHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MENTIONED ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT E NQUIRIES CAUSED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT WITH THESE PARTIES AND THE DEPOSITIONS TAKEN STATING THAT THEY ARE NOT INTO REAL BUSINESS . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS TOT ALLY UNJUSTIFIED MAKING AN ALLEGATION AT THIS STAGE. THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN AN IDENTICAL SITUATION, THE ADDITIO N/DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS P URCHASES AND LABOUR CHARGES FOR THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007- 08 HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 374 3 OF 2010 BY ORDER DATED 8.5.2013. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITS THAT EXCEPT M/S. BHAGWATI ENTERPRISES AND M/S. SANDEEP T RADING CO., ALL OTHER PARTIES ARE SAME IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YE AR. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007- 08. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASS ESSMENT DISALLOWED RS. 41,95,897/- & RS. 4,87,504/- TOWARDS BOGUS PURCHASES AND LABOUR CHARGES FOR THE REASON THAT T HE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THE PARTIES IN THE AD DRESS GIVEN BY ITA NOS. 126 & 129/M/2013 126 & 129/M/2013BBB 6 THEM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOLELY RELIED ON THE I NSPECTORS REPORT WHICH STATED THAT THE PARTIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE DETA ILS IN RESPECT OF THESE PARTIES INCLUDING CONFIRMATION, PAN, BANK STATEMENT S, LEDGER ACCOUNTS, COPIES OF RETURNS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEY WERE ALL COMPLETELY IGNORED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN COGNIZ ANCE OF THE FACT THAT ALL THESE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THERE IS NO BASIS FOR MAKING THESE ADDIT IONS. WHILE COMING TO SUCH CONCLUSION, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED AS UNDE R: 1 HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE REPRESENT ATIVE AND THE STANDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AO HAS PRIMARILY FORMED HIS SURMISES ON THE BASIS OF WARD INSPECTOR'S REPORT WHO WAS UNABLE TO SERVE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) T O THE AFORESAID PARTIES. HOWEVER,THE APPELLANT FIRM HAD F ILED CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS, PAN, LNCOME TAX RETURN S ETC. INSTEAD OF CONDUCTING VERIFICATION BASED ON THE ABOVE INFOR MATION, THE AO DISALLOWED THE PURCHASES ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT SUBMIT BANK ACCOUNT, INCOME TAX RETURN AND NEW ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES. IN ANY CASE, IT IS SEEN FROM THE COPIES OF CONFIRMATION THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS BY THE APPELLANT WERE MADE EITHER BY DD OR BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. IF THE AO DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES, HE OUGHT TO HAVE CONDUCTE D VERIFICATION WITH THE BANK TO FIND OUT AS TO WHO EN CASHED THE CHEQUES. WITHOUT DOING THIS EXERCISE, HE REQUIRED T HE APPELLANT TO FURNISH THE BANK ACCOUNT AND INCOME TAX RETURNS OF THE PURCHASE CASES WHICH THE APPELLANT COULD NOT OBTAIN IN CERTA IN CASES. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED BANK ACCOUNT AND I NCOME TAX RETURN COPIES OF CERTAIN PARTIES WHEREVER THE SAME COULD BE OBTAINED. FROM THE TABLE GIVEN IN PARA 4 ABOVE, IT IS SEEN T HAT THE CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED IN RESPECT OF ALL THE 7 PA RTIES AND INCOME TAX RETURNS WERE FILED IN RESPECT OF 2 PARTI ES AND COPY OF ITA NOS. 126 & 129/M/2013 126 & 129/M/2013BBB 7 PAN CARD WAS ALSO FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF 3 PARTIES . DETAILS OF TDS DEDUCTED HAVE ALSO BEEN PROVIDED. THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED THE INITIAL ONUS OF PROVING THE GENUINEN ESS OF PURCHASES AND LABOUR BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEV ER ATTEMPTED TO CONDUCT ANY VERIFICATION AND HE WANTED EVERYTHIN G TO BE FILLED BY THE APPELLANT INCLUDING INFORMATION WHICH WERE N OT AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT. WHEN THE ABOVE DETAILS WERE FI LLED BY THE APPELLANT, THE BURDEN WAS SHIFTED TO THE AO WHEN TH E CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILLED AND NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE WITHOUT PROVING THAT THERE WAS BOGUS PURCHASES AND INCOME T AX RETURNS OF PURCHASE PARTIES. FUTHER, THE APPELLANT MADE PAYMENTS BY DD OR ACCOUN T PAYEE CHEQUES. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE CASH PAYMENT T O ANY OF THE PURCHASE OR LABOUR PARTY. COMPLETE DETAILS HAVE BE EN FILED REGARDING PURCHASES AND LABOUR CHARGES INCLUDING NA ME OF THE PERSON IN WHOSE NAME THE CHEQUES WERE CLEARED, AS S EEN FROM THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT ON THE CHEQUES WERE CLEARED IN THE NAME OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE. THE AO WIT HOUT VERIFYING SUCH DETAILS, FOOTED HIS CONCLUSION ONLY ON WARD INSPECTOR'S REPORT WHICH IN ITSELF SEEMS TO BE DONE NEGLIGENTLY WITHOUT PUTTING MUCH EFFORTS AND APPLICATION OF MIN D. THE AO'S VERY BASIS FOR MAKING THE SAID ADDITIONS IS FLAWED AND UNSUSTAINABLE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO CA SE FOR ANY SUCH AD HOC DISALLOWANCE. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN NOTICE OF APPEAL ORDER DT. 24.02. 2010, WHEREIN MY PREDECESSOR HAS PASSED A DETAILED ORDER AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DISCUSS ION, ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 41,95,897/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES AND RS . 4,87,504/- OF LABOUR CHARGES IS DELETED. 8. WE ALSO FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CO NSIDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007- 08 WHEREIN SIMILAR ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES WERE D ELETED HOLDING AS UNDER: ITA NOS. 126 & 129/M/2013 126 & 129/M/2013BBB 8 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSI NG THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.1.16 CRORE, OF WHICH 90% HAS BEEN ADDED RESULTIN G INTO AN ADDITION OF RS.1.04 CRORE. THE DETAIL OF PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.1.16 CRORE IS INCORPORATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ALONG WITH REMARKS GIVEN BY THE. ASSESSEE. A COMMON FEATURE AS PREVAILING IN RESPECT OF ALL THESE PARTIES IS THAT THE COPIES OF CONFIRMATIONS OF THESE PARTIES HAVE INVARIABLY BEEN MADE AVAILABLE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE FIRST PARTY IS M/S.AKSHAT ENTERPRISES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WORTH RS.27.57 LAKH WERE MADE. A COPY OF CONFIRMATI ON FROM THIS PARTY IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 182 OF THE PAPER BOOK. T HIS CONFIRMATION IS NOT ONLY DULY SIGNED BY M/S.AKSHAT ENTERPRISES BUT ALSO GIVES PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER OF THE SAID PAR TY ALONG WITH MOBILE NUMBER OF THE CONCERNED PERSON. SIMILAR POSI TION IS OBTAINING IN THE OTHER CASES ALSO. APART FROM THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED INCOME-TAX RETURNS WITH OTHER ATTACH ING DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF 3 PARTIES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARG E THE ONUS CAST UPON IT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. ONCE CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTY TOGETHER WITH ITS PERMA NENT ACCOUNT NUMBER ETC. IS PROVIDED, THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE S TANDS DISCHARGED. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFI ED WITH THE PARTICULARS SO FURNISHED, IT IS OPEN TO HIM TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRY FROM THE CONCERNED PARTY. HAVING NOT DONE SO, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE A.O. TO MAKE ADDITION. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE IM PUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS, THEREFORE, NOT ALLOWED. THE LAST GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.11.51 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES. THE ASS ESSEE DEBITED A SUM OF RS.57.56 LAKH TOWARDS LABOUR CHARGES. THE AS SESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE EVEN ADDRESSES OR BILLS IN RESPECT OF 8 PAR TIES. MOST OF THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE ADDRESSES WERE GIVEN , WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. THE A.O. MADE DISALLOWANCE AT THE RATE OF 20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSE UNDER THIS HEAD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) D ELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. FACTS OF THIS GROUND AS ALSO THE D ECISION TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO GROUN D NO.2. HERE AGAIN, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITI ON BY LOSING SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT IN RESPECT OF SEVERAL PERSON S TO WHOM THE ALLEGED PAYMENT WAS MADE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FU RNISH EVEN THE BASIC DETAILS SUCH AS ADDRESSES OR BILLS. IT IS ON CERTAIN SELECTIVE ITA NOS. 126 & 129/M/2013 126 & 129/M/2013BBB 9 MATERIAL THAT THE TOTAL ADDITION CAME TO BE DELETED . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FRESH DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHIC H HAVE NEITHER BEEN COMMENTED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) NOR THE REMAN D REPORT CALLED FROM THE AO. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET ADEQUATELY IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE IS ALSO SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF A.O. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND REQUIRE HIM TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AF RESH AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD. 9. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEING IDENTICAL, WE DELE TE THE DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION MADE TOWARDS ALLEGED BOGUS PU RCHASES AND BOGUS LABOUR CHARGES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 10. COMING TO THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 126/M/13 FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS APPEAL TOWA RDS BOGUS PURCHASES IS RS. 4,50,787/-, THE REVENUE EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKHS. 11. BEFORE GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, WE CO NSIDER CBDTS LATEST INSTRUCTIONS VIDE CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10/12/2015, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH READ AS UNDER:- CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 F NO 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ (PT) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD DIRECT TAXES NEW DELHI THE 10TH DECEMBER, 2015 SUBJECT: REVISION OF MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING O F APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TR IBUNAL AND HIGH COURTS AND SLP BEFORE SUPREME COURT - MEAS URES FOR REDUCING LITIGATION - REG ITA NOS. 126 & 129/M/2013 126 & 129/M/2013BBB 10 REFERENCE IS INVITED TO BOARD'S INSTRUCTION NO 5/20 14 DATED 10.07.2014 WHEREIN MONETARY LIMITS AND OTHER CONDITIONS FOR FILING DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS (IN INCOME-TAX MATT ERS) BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND HIGH COURTS AND SLP BEFORE T HE SUPREME COURT WERE SPECIFIED. 2. IN SUPERSESSION OF THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION, IT HA S BEEN DECIDED BY THE BOARD THAT DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS MAY BE FILED ON MERITS BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND HIGH COURTS AN D SLP BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT KEEPING IN VIEW THE MONETARY LIMI TS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BELOW. 3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/ SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER: - S. NO APPEALS IN INCOME - TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS) 1. BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 10,00,000/ - 2. BEFORE HIGH COURT 20,00,000/ - 3. BEFORE SUPREME COURT 25,00,000/ - IT IS CLARIFIED THAT AN APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED MERELY BECAUSE THE TAX EFFECT IN A CASE EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT S PRESCRIBED ABOVE. FILING OF APPEAL IN SUCH CASES IS TO BE DECI DED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 12. IT IS FURTHER CLARIFIED BY THE BOARD IN ITS CIR CULAR THAT THESE INSTRUCTIONS WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN HIGH COURTS AND T RIBUNALS. IT IS ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE MONITORY LIMITS FIXED IN PARA-3 ABOVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN OR NOT PRESSED. 13. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE TOTAL DEMAND AS PER CI T(A)S ORDER IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,00,000/-,WHICH IS BELOW T HE MONETARY LIMITS AS ITA NOS. 126 & 129/M/2013 126 & 129/M/2013BBB 11 MENTIONED IN CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 10.12.2015 (SUPRA) . FOLLOWING THE SAME, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (RAMIT KOCHAR) (C.N. PRASAD ) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ %' /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; (' DATED : 18 TH -- MAY, 2016 . % . ./ RJ , SR. PS !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. *+ ,%%-. , -.! , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , /01 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, *% //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI