ITO WARD 8(2)(1), MUMBAI V. M/S. STIACK ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 656/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-8(2)(1) against M/s Stiack Engineering Pvt. Ltd. concerning the assessment order for the year 2010-11. The primary contention was regarding the addition on account of bogus purchases, which the assessee failed to negate based on inquiries by DGIT(Inv), Mumbai, triggered by information from the Sales Tax Department. The CIT(A) had restricted the addition to 12.5% on account of these bogus purchases. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the burden of proof should remain with the assessee, and the high degree of burden was not met. However, the appeal was dismissed due to the low tax effect, adhering to the monetary limit set by the CBDT Circular.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 302265 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2023
• Laws Referred To: Indian Evidence Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 10; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘ SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT A N o . 656 / Mu m/ 20 23 ( A sse s s me n t Y e ar s :2 0 10 -1 1 ) ITO, Ward-8(2)(1) Room No. 622, 6 th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K, Road, Mumbai. Vs. M/s Stiack Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 203, Turf Estate, Shakti Mill Lane, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai- 400011. PA N / G IR N o. AABCH 500Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee represented by Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue represented by Mr. Jogendra Singh, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 09/05/2023 Date of Pronouncement 09/05/2023 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH (J.M): The Appellant, M/s Stiack Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua the assessment order for Assessment year 2010-11 on the grounds inter-alia that:- “i) The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in giving relief in respect of addition on account of bogus purchase after nothing that appellant failed to negate the information based on enquiry conducted by DGIT(Inv), Mumbai, triggered by information from the ITA No. 656/Mum/2023 2 Sales Tax Department that they were hawala dealers and providing accommodation bills. ii) The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in restricting the addition to 12.5% on account of bogus purchases as the parties from whom purchases were made were hawala dealers and absolute burden of proof as cast on the assessee and this burden of proof never shift to the Department. iii) The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that this being a case of utter disregard and subversion of law, the burden of proof cast on the assessee was of a very high degree and assessee failed to discharge this burden. iv) The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in not giving effect to section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act which clearly lays down that if a fact in knowledge of a party is not explained adverse inference can be drawn against the party possessing the knowledge of fact/information.” 2. Bare perusal of the grounds raised by the Revenue in the present appeal, order passed by the ld. Lower Revenue Authorities apparently shows that tax effect in this case are low because as per CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019 monetary limit for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is Rs. 50,00,000/-. Relevant Para 13 of Circular (Supra) reads as under:- “This circular will apply to SLPs/appeals/cross objection/reference to be filed henceforth in SC/HCS/Tribunal and it also apply the retrospectively to pending SLPs/appeals/cross objection/reference. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn not pressed.” In view of the matter since tax effect involved in the present appeal are below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-, the same is not maintainable, ITA No. 656/Mum/2023 3 hence dismissed having been become infructous. However in case this appeal falls within any of the exceptions the Revenue may seek recall of the order in order to restore the present appeal. 9. Resultantly, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09/05/2023. Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 09/05/2023 Santosh, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary / Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No. 656/Mum/2023 4 Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on 09/05/2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 10/05/2023 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member 11/05/2023 JM/AM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order. 11. Dictation Pad is enclosed Yes