ITO 9(2)(3), MUMBAI V. NAWANY CONSTRUCTION CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 8313/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84362 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S AKHILENDRA YADAV SR
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHISHEK TILAK
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 8313/M/2010 ( AY: 2009 - 2010 ) ITO - 9(2) (3) , R.NO.225, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 20. / VS. M/S. NAWANY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT LTD., 384 - 1, BANDANA, 15 TH ROAD, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI 400050. ./ PAN : AAACN1471D ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. AKHILENDRA YADAV, SR. AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ABHISHEK TILAK / DATE OF HEARING : 25 .11.2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 .11.2014 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 1.12.2010 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 20, MUMBAI DATED 23.9.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 2003. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,65,809/ - WHICH REPRESENTS EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BUT NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCURRED IN RELATION TO ITS TRANSPORT BUSINESS. 3. AT THE OUTSET, SHRI ABHISHEK T ILAK, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THIS IS THE CROSS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE OTHER APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITA NO.8555/MUM/2010 (AY 2002 - 2003) WAS ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 20.4.2012. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) AND BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 8.2 AND MENTIONED THAT THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.12.2009, WHICH IS THE 2 BASIS FOR THE PRE SENT APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION IS HELD A S NU LL AND VOID . LD COUNSEL READ OUT THE SAID PARA 8.2 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER (SUPRA) WHICH READS AS UNDER: 8.2. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE RATIO OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AND THE FINDING GIVEN BY US IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS, QUASHED THE PRO CEEDINGS AS HAVE BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 148 AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.12.2009 IS HELD AS NULL AND VOID. 4. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE TRIBUNAL TREATED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER IS NULL AND VOID, THEREFORE, THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BECOME IRRELEVANT CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AFTER HEARING THE LD DR AND ON PERUSAL OF THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES CASE VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 20.4.2012 (SUPRA) ON THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDER VIDE PARA 8.2 EXTRACTED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL SHOUL D BE DISMISSED AS UNSUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONO UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 6 T H NOVEMBER, 2014. S D / - S D / - ( AMIT SHUKLA ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 2 6 /11/2014 . . ./ OKK , 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 . 3 //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI