NILSAN NISHOTECH SYSTEM PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI V. DCIT 15(1)(22), MUMBAI

ITA 470/MUM/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6989 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Deemed dividend; Set aside; Bogus

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 470/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Nilsan Nishotech Systems Private Limited, C/o 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre, DS Phalke Road, Dadar (East), Mumbai - 400014 [PAN: AAACN2768D] ............... Appellant Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 15(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400020 Vs ................ Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee For the Respondent/Department : : Shri Shubham Shah Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 22.05.2024 29.05.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, dated 08/01/2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2010-11, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 11/03/2013, passed under Section 143(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The Appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On given facts, circumstances and judicial ITA No. 470/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) 2 pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal, without considering the order of Hon. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Such order passed by CIT Appeals is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. 2. On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in making addition on account of Deemed Dividend, even though the said issue was not set- aside by Hon. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Such addition is bad in law and liable to deleted. 3. Without prejudice to the above, On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in making addition on account of Deemed Dividend, even though the same was allowed by Hon. CIT Appeals in the first round of Appeal. Such confirmation of addition is bad in law and liable to deleted. 4. On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the entire addition made on account of Bogus purchases, without considering the directions of Hon. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, to verify the fact that whether assessee has not made such purchases or not. Such confirmation of addition is bad in law and liable to deleted. 5 Without prejudice to the above, On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the entire addition made on account of Bogus purchases, even though addition at only 12.5% of the Purchases was confirmed by CIT Appeals in first round of appeal. Such confirmation of entire addition is bad in law and liable to deleted. 6. On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in making the addition on account of contribution to Provident fund before filing return of Income, even though the said issue was allowed and not set-aside by Hon. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Such addition is bad in law and liable to deleted. 7. Without prejudice to the above, on given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in making the addition on account of contribution to Provident fund before filing return of Income for year under consideration. Such addition is bad in law and liable to deleted.” 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on ITA No. 470/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) 3 record. The primary contention of the Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant is that the Assessing Officer has not followed the directions given by the Tribunal vide order, dated 14/08/2017, passed in the first round of proceedings and has exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding issues which stood concluded in the first round of the proceedings. 4. On perusal of order impugned, we find that order impugned passed by the CIT(A) does not make reference to the order, dated 14/08/2017, passed by the Tribunal. Thus, the CIT(A) has failed to take cognizance of the order, dated 14/08/2017, passed by the Tribunal in the first round of proceedings and consequently failed to give effect to the directions issued by the Tribunal. The order, dated 08/01/2024, passed by the CIT(A) is, therefore, set aside. The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issues set aside to the file of CIT(A) as per the directions give by the Tribunal vide order, dated 14/08/2017. Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes while rest of the grounds raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous. 5. In terms of the above, present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29.05.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Om Prakash Kant) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated : 29.05.2024 Alindra, PS ITA No. 470/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) 4 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त/ The CIT 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त / Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदध, आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy// उप/सह यक पुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai