ITO 8 (2)(4), MUMBAI V. M/S SWATI INTERIOR CONCEPTS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 6468/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3039 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 6468/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) ITO - 8(2)(4) ROOM NO.618, 6 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAWAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 PAN : AALCS1713Q VS. SW ATI INTERIOR CONCEPTS PVT.LTD. 110, NAVNEELAM, DR.RG THADHANI MARG WORLI, MUMBAI-400 018 ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY SHRI PRAKASH MANE - DR DATE OF HEARING 20.10 .2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21 . 10 .2021 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) :- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-14 DATED 30.07.2019 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10-11. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING ARE NOT PROPER AND ARE VAGUE, WITHOUT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE INCOME E SCAPING ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES, HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE REASONS ALONGWITH THE NAME OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS SUPPLIER & THE QUANTUM OF BOGUS PURCHASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT(A] ERRED IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT TH E CASE WAS NOT VALIDLY REOPENED.' II. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GR OUND OR TO ADD A NEW GROUND THAT MAY BE NECESSARY AT THE TIME OF HEARING . III. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF TH E CIT (APPEALS] ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED . ITA NO.6468/MUM/2019 2 3. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD. I NOTE THAT IN THIS CASE ADDITION WAS MADE FOR BOGUS PURCHASE BY THE AO. ASS ESSEES APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A) CHALLENGED BOTH THE JURISDICTIONAL ASPECT AS WELL AS MERIT OF THE ADDITION. LD.CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE ON REOPENING IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT HENCE HE IS NOT ADJUDICATING UPON THE MERITS. WE FIND TH AT HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RAMDAS PHARMACY 77 ITR 276 HAD E XPOUNDED THAT AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY CANNOT DECIDE ONLY ONE ISSUE ARISING OUT OF MANY ISSUES AND DECLINE TO GO INTO TO THE OTHER ISSUES RAISED BEFORE IT ON THE GR OUND THAT FURTHER ISSUES WILL NOT ARISE IN VIEW OF THE FINDING ON THE ISSUE DECIDED BY IT. IT WAS EXPOUNDED THAT IF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DECLINES TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE THE OTHER ISSUES, IT COULD ONLY PROTRACT AND DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS, FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS TO GET THE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE INITIAL POINT SET ASIDE BY APPROACHING A HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THEREAFTER, AGAIN GO BEFORE THE APPEL LATE AUTHORITY FOR THE DECISION ON THE OTHER ISSUES LEFT UNDECIDED BY IT EARLIER. IT WAS H ELD THAT THIS WILL AMOUNT TO MULTIPLICATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT. IT WAS FU RTHER EXPOUNDED THAT SUBORDINATE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS SHOULD AS FAR AS POSSIBLE GIV E THEIR VIEWS ON ALL THE POINTS RAISED BEFORE THEM SO THAT THE HIGHER COURTS WILL HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DECISION ON OTHER POINTS ALSO, IF THE NECESSITY ARISES. 4. EXAMINING THE PRESENT APPEAL ON THE TOUCHSTO NE OF ABOVE SAID CASE LAW, I FIND THAT THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) HERE DIRECTLY FALLS UND ER THE AMBIT OF HONBLE COURTS ORDER AS ABOVE. LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED ONE ISSUE AND HAS LEFT UNDECIDED ANOTHER ISSUE DULY RAISED BEFORE HIM. HENCE, I AM OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM ON THE MERITS NEEDS TO BE R EMITTED TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A). LD.CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO COMPLETE HIS APPELLATE ORD ER BY DECIDING ON THE MERITS, WHICH WAS DULY RAISED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER T HE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS COMPLETE UPON ADJUDICATION OF THIS ISSUE, BOTH THE PARTIES W ILL BE AT LIBERTY TO FILE NECESSARY APPEALS AS AND IF NECESSARY. ITA NO.6468/MUM/2019 3 5. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED TO THE FI LE OF LD.CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ORDER REMITTING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) SO AS TO COMPLETE HIS ORDER, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS NOT BEING ADJUDICATED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.10.2021. SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 21/10/2021 THIRUMALESH, 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// ( ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI