ASST CIT 16(3), MUMBAI V. BHAKTI IMPEX, MUMBAI

ITA 7333/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3075 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK J PATIL
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 7333/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE ACIT - 16(3), MATRU MANDIR, 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO. 206, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI- 400 007. VS. M/S. BHAKTI IMPEX., 22, 2 ND FLOOR, KHATAU APARTMENT, 243, WALKESHWAR ROAD, MUMBAI- 400004. PAN- AAAFB3214H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. AKHILENDRA PRATAP YADAV RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. ASHOK J. PATIL DATE OF HEARING: 20/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20/06/2016 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST ORDER DATED 13/09/2013 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(APPEALS)-27, MUMBAI FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER O N FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.17,06,047/- IN RESPECT OF BOGUS LABOUR CHARGES W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE? 2 ITA NO. 7333/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), MUMBAI ERRED IN RELAYING ON THE DEC ISION OF THE LD. CIT(A), VALSAD WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE BOGUS BILL PROVIDER SHRI. ATUL NANDLAL DAFTARY, PROP.OF MEGHBIR CORPORATION W AS ESTIMATED AT GROSS PROFIT AT 3% WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY DEPART MENT AND APPEAL HAD BEEN FILED BEFORE HON. ITAT WHICH IS PEN DING FOR ADJUDICATION. 3. THE LD. CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT APPEAL ORD ER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY DEPARTMEN T AND APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE SAME BEFORE HON. ITAT, MUMBAI. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS BELOW RS.10,00,000/- AS THE TOTAL A DDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF BOGUS LABOUR CHARGES IS RS. 17,06,047/-. HENCE, AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21 OF 2015, DATED 10/12/2015, THE PRES ENT APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 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 COUR T ON 20 TH JUNE, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( B.R.BASKARAN ) (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 20/06/2016 3 ITA NO. 7333/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 / 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