DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI V. SHINGAR P.L TD, MUMBAI

ITA 4264/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2644 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CAPTAIN PRADEEP ARYA
• Assessee Lawyers: N K BHUTA
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 115JB; 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 4264/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 THE DCIT 8(3), ROOM NO. 217, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.MARG, MUMBAI- 400 020. VS. M /S. SHINGAR LTD. KALPATARU 71, NUTAN LAXMI SOCIETY, N.S.ROAD, NO.9 JUHU SCHEME, VILE PARLE(W), MUMBAI- 400 049. PAN- AABCS4563J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : CAPTAIN. PRADEEP ARYA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. N.K.BHUTA DATE OF HEARING: 2 9 /0 9 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29/09/201 6 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST ORDER DATED 19/03/2013 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(APPEALS)-18, MUMBAI FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER O N FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD., 320 ITR 561, WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THAT UNLIKE IN THE CASE CITED SUPRA, IN THE INSTANT CAS E THE ISSUE OF 2 ITA NO. 4264/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB HAD NOT BEEN CONSID ERED BY THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE ISSUE OF MAT ON BO OK PROFIT U/S 115JB WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LI ABLE FOR THE SAME'. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS BELOW RS.10,00,000/- AND AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21 OF 2015, DATED 10/12/2015, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT M AINTAINABLE. 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 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( B.R.BASKARAN ) (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 29/09/2016 3 ITA NO. 4264/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 / 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