DCIT-8(2)(1), MUMBAI V. SHIRDI INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4096/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2569 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 4096/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2007–08) DCIT Ci rc le 8(2 ) (1) Room no.624, 6 th F loor Aaya kar Bha van M.K. road, Mum bai-400 020 Vs. Shirdi Industries Ltd. A Wing, 2 nd Floor, Mhatre Pen Bldg, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai-400 028 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCS 9402 N Assessee by : Shri Mahaveer Jain, AR Revenue by : Shri Jasbir S. Chouhan, CIT DR Date of hearing: 13.07.2022 Date of pronouncement : 27.07.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai, (the learned Assessing Officer) against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)–14, Mumbai, [the learned CIT(A)] dated 10 th March, 2017 for A.Y. 2007–08 raising following grounds of appeal:- “(1) The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in justifying the fact that the investing company invested in the share premium of the company without making any enquiry regarding profit of the company, earnings per share, history of dividend Page | 2 ITA no.4096/Mum/2017 Shirdi Industries Ltd.; A.Y. 07–08 declared in the past, future prospects and generation of the profit of the assessee. (ii) The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition made by the AO when the assessee nor the investor has provided the details which proves the credit worthiness and the same is not commensurate to have afforded to make such huge investment to share premium of the assessee company. 2. The Ld.CIT(A)'s order is contrary to law and facts and deserves to be set aside and A.O.'s order may be restored.” 02. At the time of hearing, the advocate of the assessee submitted a letter wherein the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dated 7 th May, 2018 is filed, wherein assessee is a corporate debtor and corporate insolvency resolution process under IBC 2016 is continuing. In terms of Section 14 of IBC 2016, no proceedings can continue against the corporate debtor. 03. The learned Departmental Representative pointed out our attention that letter dated 17 th May, 2021 states these facts. 04. We find that as the corporate insolvency resolution process is continuing in case of the above assessee the learned Assessing Officer cannot continue to pursue this appeal. Accordingly, in terms of Section 14 of IBC 2016, we dismiss the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer Page | 3 ITA no.4096/Mum/2017 Shirdi Industries Ltd.; A.Y. 07–08 however, give an liberty to him to file the appeal as soon as IBC 2016 procedure is over. 05. In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.07.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Mumbai, Dated: 27.07.2022 Sudip Sarkar, 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. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai