ACIT CIRCLE-7(3)(2), Mumbai V. M/S PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO PIRAMAL INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.), Mumbai

MA 01/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1532 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BRAJENDRA KUMAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Audit objection
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (V I RTUAL COURT) , C BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JUSTICE P . P . BHATT, PRESIDENT & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM MA NO.01/MUM/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 2338 /MUM/ 20 19 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 ) THE ASSI STANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7(3)(2) ROOM NO.128A, 1 ST FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI VS. M/S. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD., (SUCCESSOR OF INTEREST TO PIRAMAL INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,) 10, PIRAMAL TOWER, G.K.MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI 400 013 PAN/GIR NO. AABCP6125D (APPELLANT ) .. (RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY SHRI BRAJENDRA KUMAR, DR ASSESSEE BY MISS MANSHI PADHIAR, AR DATE OF HEARING 11 / 12 /2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11 / 12 /2020 / O R D E R PER JUSTICE P P BHATT (PRESIDENT): BY VIRTUE OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE REVENUE SEEKS TO RECALL THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2338/MUM/2019 DATED 21/08/2019 FOR A.Y.2010 - 11 ON THE GROUND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STATING THAT THE TA X EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE SAID APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMITS OF CBDT CIRCULAR, WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS BEEN REOPENED M A NO . 01/MUM/2020 M/S. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED 2 ON THE BASIS OF REVENUE A UDIT O BJECTION WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND HENCE, THE SAME WOULD FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN PARA 2 (C ) OF THE SAID CIRCULAR . 2. THE LD. AR BEFORE US VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT EVEN IN THE CASE WHERE THE REVENUE A UDIT O BJECTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ASSESSMENT IS REOPENED BY THE LD. AO, THE SAME MIGHT CONSTITUTE GOOD REASON ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND AS FAR AS THE FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS CONCERNED, THE SAME WOULD BE GOVERNED BY PARA 3 OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.5/2017 DATED 23/01/2017 WHEREIN T HE REVENUE IS PREVENTED FROM FILING OF APPEALS MECHANICALLY AND THE APPEAL SHOULD BE PREFERRED ONLY ON MERITS OF THE CASE. IN THIS REGARD, SHE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF KOLKATA TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS ABCI INFRASTRUCTUR E PVT LD IN ITA NO. 1788/KOL/2016 DATED 31.8.2018. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. DR HAD PLACED THE COPY OF THE REVENUE A UDIT O BJECTION ON RECORD BEFORE US, WHICH TRIGGERED INITIATION OF RE - ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. ULTIMATELY, RE - ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE LD. AO U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT ON 30/12/2016 BY MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED IN THE NAME OF PIRAMAL INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., (I.E AMALGAMATING COMPANY) BY THE LD. AO. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CI T (A) HAD QUASHED THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE LD. AO ERRED IN FRAMING THE RE - ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY WHICH WAS NON - EXISTENT AS ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT AN D CONSEQUENTLY PASSING OF RE - ASSESSMENT ORDER THEREON. THE REVENUE HAD PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE US CHALLENGING THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). M A NO . 01/MUM/2020 M/S. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED 3 3.1. WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS BELOW THE MONE TARY LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY CBDT FOR PREFERRING APPEALS BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. ON A CONJOINT READING OF CIRCULAR NO.5/2017 DATED 23/01/2017 AND CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 AND 08/2016 ISSUED BY CBDT, WE FIND THAT IF THE CASE FALLS IN ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDE D IN THE SAID CIRCULARS, THE SAID MONETARY LIMITS PRESCRIBED FOR PREFERRING THE APPEAL WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. A PLAIN READING OF THE AFORESAID CIRCULARS WOULD RESULT IN SUCH UNDERSTANDING ONLY, WHICH , IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IS UNAMBIGUOUS . THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO INTERPRET THE VERACITY OR ELIGIBILITY OF THE REVENUE TO PREFER APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION PROCEEDINGS U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT WHERE THE SCOPE OF THE TRIBUNAL IS VERY LIMITED. WE FIND THAT THE L D. AR BEFORE US WAS ONLY TRYING TO QUESTION / CHALLENGE THE VERY BASIS OF REVENUE PREFERRING THE APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE GROUND THAT RE - ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED IN THE NAME OF NON - EXISTENT ENTITY AND THAT THE REVENUE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE PREFERRED ANY APPEAL PER SE ON MERITS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THIS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION , IS CERTAINLY NOT AN ISSUE IN DISPUTE BEFORE US IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE. HENCE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ENTERTAIN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR IN THE MISCELL ANEOUS APPLICATION PROCEEDING. AT THE COST OF REPETITION, WE WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT THE REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHICH HAD ULTIMATELY TRIGGERED INITIATION OF RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , IS ALREADY ON RECORD AND HENCE, CE RTAINLY FALLS UNDER THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN THE CBDT CIRCULAR PRESCRIBING THE MONETARY LIMITS FOR PREFERRING APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE HOLD THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED AND IS HEREBY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL ON 21/08/2019 IN THE CASE OF THIS ASSESSEE IS M A NO . 01/MUM/2020 M/S. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED 4 HEREBY RECALLED. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE MAIN APPEAL IN REGULAR COURSE. 4. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORD ER PRONOUNCED ON 11 / 12 /2020 BY WAY OF PROPER MENTIONING IN THE NOTICE BOARD. SD/ - ( M.BALAGANESH ) SD/ - ( JUSTICE P . P . BHATT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT MUMBAI ; DATED 11 / 12 / 2020 KARUN A , SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ( 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// M A NO . 01/MUM/2020 M/S. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED 5 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 11/12/2020 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 11/12/2020 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 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