M/S CAPACIT'E INFRAPROJECTS LTD ,MUMBAI V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI

MA 158/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Capacit'e Infraprojects Ltd., which filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking recall of a Tribunal order concerning assessment years 2017-18 to 2020-21. The applications were based on the grounds that the Tribunal had not considered a comprehensive Paper Book submitted by the assessee and erroneously treated documents submitted to the CIT(A) as additional evidence. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and the records, concluded that the documents in question were indeed considered and that the issues raised did not warrant a recall of the order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 397918 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HIMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: VIRAJ MEHTA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance; Bogus
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) MA Nos. 156 to 159/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 954 to 957/MUM/2023) Assessment Years: 2017-18 to 2020-21 M/s Capacit’e Infraprojects Ltd., 605-607, Shrikant Chamber, Phase-I, 6th floor, Adjacent to RK Studio, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur Mumbai-400071. Vs. DCIT (CC)-1(2), 906, 9th floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Building (Annexe), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AAECC 9463 G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Viraj Mehta Revenue by : Mr. Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09/05/2025 Date of pronouncement : 03/06/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of these Miscellaneous Applications, the assessee seeks recall of the common order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 954 to 957/Mum/2023, pertaining to the assessment years 2017-18 to 2020-21 respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the assessee, referring to the Miscellaneous Applications, submitted that the assessee had filed a comprehensive Paper Book spanning pages 1 to 1891 (Volume I to VI), which was not considered reliance was placed on a Paper Book containing only pages 1 to 53, which was submitted at the conclusion of the hearing. It was argued that non-consideration of the full Paper Book constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record, including the Paper Book filed by the assessee. It is evident that the documents relied upon during the course of hearing were submitted by the assessee in a separate Paper Book consisting of pages 1 to 53. The Tribunal has duly taken note of and considered all such documents. Hence, we do not find any error, much less an error apparent from the record, in this regard. The contention raised by the learned counsel is, therefore, devoid of merit and stands rejected. 4. The second ground raised by the assessee pertains to the Tribunal's finding that the documents submitted before the learned CIT(A) constituted additional evidence, and that the CIT(A) decided the matter justice. It was contended that no additional evidence was filed before the CIT(A), and that the Tribunal's observation to the contrary amounts to an error, particularly when the Revenue had not raised any such gro M/s Capacit’e MA Nos. 156 to 159/MUM/2024 to VI), which was not considered by the Tribunal. Instead, reliance was placed on a Paper Book containing only pages 1 to 53, which was submitted at the conclusion of the hearing. It was consideration of the full Paper Book constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record, including the Paper Book filed by the assessee. It is evident that the documents relied upon during the course of hearing were submitted by the assessee in a rate Paper Book consisting of pages 1 to 53. The Tribunal has duly taken note of and considered all such documents. Hence, we do not find any error, much less an error apparent from the record, in this regard. The contention raised by the s, therefore, devoid of merit and stands rejected. The second ground raised by the assessee pertains to the Tribunal's finding that the documents submitted before the learned CIT(A) constituted additional evidence, and that the CIT(A) decided the matter in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was contended that no additional evidence was filed before the CIT(A), and that the Tribunal's observation to the contrary amounts to an error, particularly when the Revenue had not raised any such ground in its appeal. M/s Capacit’e Infraprojects Ltd. 2 MA Nos. 156 to 159/MUM/2024 by the Tribunal. Instead, reliance was placed on a Paper Book containing only pages 1 to 53, which was submitted at the conclusion of the hearing. It was consideration of the full Paper Book constitutes We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record, including the Paper Book filed by the assessee. It is evident that the documents relied upon during the course of hearing were submitted by the assessee in a rate Paper Book consisting of pages 1 to 53. The Tribunal has duly taken note of and considered all such documents. Hence, we do not find any error, much less an error apparent from the record, in this regard. The contention raised by the s, therefore, devoid of merit and stands rejected. The second ground raised by the assessee pertains to the Tribunal's finding that the documents submitted before the learned CIT(A) constituted additional evidence, and that the in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was contended that no additional evidence was filed before the CIT(A), and that the Tribunal's observation to the contrary amounts to an error, particularly when the Revenue had 4.1 We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The findings of the Tribunal, as recorded in para 6.4 of the impugned order, are reproduced below for ease of reference: “6.4 We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that the details in respect of the party were filed before the Assessing Officer, but the Assessing Officer has recorded non part of the assessee. Therefore, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the documents listed in para 4.1 above were filed during assessment proceedings is not correct. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) has noted that in the statement under Section 133A, t supplying goods to the assessee, but no such statement was referred to or made available to the Assessing Officer. Likewise, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the notice under Section 133(6) of the Act was complied with by the said party; however, the Assessing Officer has noted non compliance. Furthermore, the CIT(A) has referred to documents allegedly filed in proceedings under Section 153C, yet no opportunity was provided to the Assessing Officer to verify these ma we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue in violation of the principles of natural justice and on the basis of additional evidences not confronted to the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we consider it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of the documentary evidence filed before the Ld. CIT(A).” 4.2 Similar findings have been recorded by the Tribunal in respect of other entities alleged to be in M/s Capacit’e MA Nos. 156 to 159/MUM/2024 We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The findings of the Tribunal, as recorded in para 6.4 of the impugned order, are reproduced below for ease of reference: heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that the details in respect of the party were filed before the Assessing Officer, but the Assessing Officer has recorded non-compl part of the assessee. Therefore, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the documents listed in para 4.1 above were filed during assessment proceedings is not correct. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) has noted that in the statement under Section 133A, the proprietor of the concern admitted to supplying goods to the assessee, but no such statement was referred to or made available to the Assessing Officer. Likewise, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the notice under Section 133(6) of the Act was complied ith by the said party; however, the Assessing Officer has noted non compliance. Furthermore, the CIT(A) has referred to documents allegedly filed in proceedings under Section 153C, yet no opportunity was provided to the Assessing Officer to verify these materials. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue in violation of the principles of natural justice and on the basis of additional evidences not confronted to the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we consider it riate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of the documentary evidence filed before the Similar findings have been recorded by the Tribunal in respect of other entities alleged to be involved in bogus M/s Capacit’e Infraprojects Ltd. 3 MA Nos. 156 to 159/MUM/2024 We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The findings of the Tribunal, as recorded in para 6.4 of the impugned order, are heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that the details in respect of the party were filed before the Assessing compliance on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the documents listed in para 4.1 above were filed during assessment proceedings is not correct. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) has noted that in the he proprietor of the concern admitted to supplying goods to the assessee, but no such statement was referred to or made available to the Assessing Officer. Likewise, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the notice under Section 133(6) of the Act was complied ith by the said party; however, the Assessing Officer has noted non- compliance. Furthermore, the CIT(A) has referred to documents allegedly filed in proceedings under Section 153C, yet no opportunity was provided terials. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue in violation of the principles of natural justice and on the basis of additional evidences not confronted to the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we consider it riate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of the documentary evidence filed before the Similar findings have been recorded by the Tribunal in volved in bogus transactions. The Tribunal has, after examining both the assessment orders and the appellate orders, duly noted the factual findings of non Officer. Moreover, the Tribunal has observed that the CIT(A) placed reliance on documents relating to proceedings under Section 153C that were never before the Assessing Officer and were not subjected to verification as per due process. On this basis, the Tribunal rightly held that the said material constituted additional evidence and that the CIT(A) had failed to follow the procedure prescribed under law. 5. In our considered view, the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal are grounded in the factual matrix as borne out by the record. The relief sought by the assessee amo review of the findings already rendered by the Tribunal, which is impermissible in law in the guise of a rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act. The power of rectification is limited to correcting mistakes apparent on the fa extended to reassessing or reappreciating factual determinations. 6. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee, and the same are, therefore, dismissed. 7. Since identical issues hav Miscellaneous Applications therefore, the grounds raised in all the Miscellaneous Applications are accordingly dismissed. M/s Capacit’e MA Nos. 156 to 159/MUM/2024 transactions. The Tribunal has, after examining both the assessment orders and the appellate orders, duly noted the factual findings of non-compliance recorded by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, the Tribunal has observed that the CIT(A) aced reliance on documents relating to proceedings under Section 153C that were never before the Assessing Officer and were not subjected to verification as per due process. On this basis, the Tribunal rightly held that the said material constituted onal evidence and that the CIT(A) had failed to follow the procedure prescribed under law. In our considered view, the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal are grounded in the factual matrix as borne out by the record. The relief sought by the assessee amounts, in substance, to a review of the findings already rendered by the Tribunal, which is impermissible in law in the guise of a rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act. The power of rectification is limited to correcting mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be extended to reassessing or reappreciating factual determinations. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee, and the same are, therefore, dismissed. Since identical issues have been raised in all the Miscellaneous Applications therefore, the grounds raised in all the Miscellaneous Applications are accordingly dismissed. M/s Capacit’e Infraprojects Ltd. 4 MA Nos. 156 to 159/MUM/2024 transactions. The Tribunal has, after examining both the assessment orders and the appellate orders, duly noted the compliance recorded by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, the Tribunal has observed that the CIT(A) aced reliance on documents relating to proceedings under Section 153C that were never before the Assessing Officer and were not subjected to verification as per due process. On this basis, the Tribunal rightly held that the said material constituted onal evidence and that the CIT(A) had failed to follow the In our considered view, the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal are grounded in the factual matrix as borne out by the record. unts, in substance, to a review of the findings already rendered by the Tribunal, which is impermissible in law in the guise of a rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act. The power of rectification is limited to correcting ce of the record and cannot be extended to reassessing or reappreciating factual determinations. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee, and the same are, therefore, dismissed. e been raised in all the Miscellaneous Applications therefore, the grounds raised in all the Miscellaneous Applications are accordingly dismissed. 8. In the result, all the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced Sd/ (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 03/06/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// M/s Capacit’e MA Nos. 156 to 159/MUM/2024 In the result, all the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/06/2025. Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai M/s Capacit’e Infraprojects Ltd. 5 MA Nos. 156 to 159/MUM/2024 In the result, all the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the /06/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "