DCIT 16(3), MUMBAI V. BHAKTI IMPEX, MUMBAI

ITA 2396/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3074 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK J PATIL
• Keywords: Tax effect; Retraction

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 2396/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE D CIT - 16(3), MATRU MANDIR, 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO. 206, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI- 400 007. VS. M/S. BHAKTI IMPEX., 22, 2 ND FLOOR, KHATAU APARTMENT, 243, WALKESHWAR ROAD, MUMBAI- 400004. PAN- AAAFB3214H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. AKHILENDRA PRATAP YADAV RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. ASHOK J. PATIL DATE OF HEARING: 20/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20/06/2016 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST ORDER DATED 06/12/2010 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(APPEALS)-27, MUMBAI FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER O N FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE A.O. OF RS.22,15,616/- IN RESPECT OF LABOUR CHARGES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE: 2 ITA NO. 2396/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A), VALSAD WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A), VALSAD DETERMINED TH E INCOME OF THE MR. ANIL CHAHWALLA BY ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT A S WELL AS DISALLOWING CERTAIN LABOUR PAYMENTS MADE BY SHRI. A NIL CHAHWALLA U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SHRI. A NIL CHAHWALLA FILED HIS RETRACTION THREE DAYS AND THE SAME HAS TO BE TR EATED AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. 4. THE LD. CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE STATEM ENT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE RECORDED ON FOUR OCCASIONS CLEARLY SHOWING THA T THE STATEMENTS WERE VOLUNTARY IN NATURE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO PLACE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), VALSAD BEFORE THE A.O. AND HENCE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF THE R ULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS BA D IN LAW. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS BELOW RS.10,00,000/- AS THE TOTAL A DDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF LABOUR CHARGES IS RS. 22,15,616/-. HENC E, AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21 OF 2015, DATED 10/12/2015, THE PRESENT APPEA L IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. THE LD. DR FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT I N DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS BELOW RS.10 LAKHS, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN APPEAL DOES NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS SPECIFIED IN PARA 8 OF THE C IRCULAR. SINCE, IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY CLARIFIED IN THE CIRCULAR AFORESAID TH AT THE INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO ALL THE PENDING APPEALS; THE PRE SENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. WE, THEREFORE, DISMIS S THE SAME IN LIMINE . 3 ITA NO. 2396/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COUR T ON 20 TH JUNE, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( B.R.BASKARAN ) (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 20/06/2016 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. !' , $ !'% , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. &' ( / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI PRAMILA