ACIT CIR 20(1), Mumbai V. SHAILESH NAVINCHANDRA SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 2383/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1527 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Tax effect; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2383/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ACIT Cir-20(1), R. No. 615, 6 th floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 बिधम/ Vs. Shailesh Navinchandra Shah, 6-321, Ravikiran, 1 st floor, Deodhar Road, Matunga CR Mumbai-400019 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAYPS6030Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. Neeta Jeph, Ld. DR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Viraj Mehta,Ld. AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 29.08.2022 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the revenue against the impugned order dated 29.10.2021, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for AY 2011-12. The revenue has raised the following grounds:- 2 I.T.A. No. 2383/Mum/2021 Shailesh Navinchandra Shah 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases to 25% of total bogus purchase ignoring the fact that the Sales Tax Department has proved beyond doubt that the parties declared as hawala traders were involved in providing accommodation entry of purchases and the assessee was one of the beneficiary of accepting accommodation for the purchase." 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to produce the parties for verification, in spite of opportunity provided by the AO." 3. "This case is filed because it is covered under the exception provided in para 10(e) of the CBDT's Circular no.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 as amended vide F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt) dated20.08.2018." 4. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC on the above ground be reversed and j that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5. The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. 2. At the outset, the tax effect on the disputed issue is below Rs. 50 lacs and as per Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 [F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-TTJ(Pt.) issued by the Central Board of 3 I.T.A. No. 2383/Mum/2021 Shailesh Navinchandra Shah Direct Taxes (CBDT), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the CBDT has revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT from the existing limit of Rs. 20 lacs to Rs. 50 lacs. 3. However, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) contented that it falls within the exception provided in para 10(e) of the CBDT circular no. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018, which reads as under:- (e) Where addition is based on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies as CBI /ED /DRI /SFIO /Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). 4. From the perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that the information is not based on any external source but from DGIT Investigation, Mumbai, therefore it does not falls within the aforesaid exception. Thus the said Clause will have no impact on this issue. 5. In any case, Ld. CIT(A) while applying GP rate on bogus purchase had followed various ITAT decision which now is full covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Md. Haji Adam & Co. (ITA No. 1044/2016) order 4 I.T.A. No. 2383/Mum/2021 Shailesh Navinchandra Shah dated 11 th February 2019, wherein it has been held that application of GP rate at 12.5%. 6. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue in limini as not maintainable on account of law tax effect in term of aforesaid CBDT circular (supra). 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed in limini. Orders pronounced in the open court on 29 th August, 2022. Sd/- (Amit Shukla) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;ददनांक Dated : 29.08.2022 Sr.PS. Dhananjay आदेशकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned 5. दवभागीयप्रदतदनदध, आयकरअपीलीयअदधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, .उि/सहधयकिंजीकधर (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअिीिीयअनर्करण, मुंबई/ ITAT, Mumbai