ASST. CIT-6(2)(2), Mumbai V. M/S ETERNITY LIFE STYLES PVT LTD, Mumbai

MA 120/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6498 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

MA NO 120MUM/2020 IN ITA NO. 4315/MUM/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI 'D' BENCH, MUMBAI [CORAM: JUSTICE P.P. BHATT (PRESIDENT), AND PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT)] MA NO 120 / MUM/2020 IN ITA NO. 4315/MUM/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6(2)(2) .APPLICANT MUMBAI. VS. M/S. ETERNITY LIFESTYLES PVT. LTD., RESPONDENT 129 - 131, CHAMPAKLAL UDYOG BHAVAN,105, SION EAST, NEXT TO TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, MUMBAI 400022 [PAN: AAACE6055A] APPEARANCES BY SUNIL DESHPANDE FOR THE APPLICANT REEPAL TRALSHAWALA FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING: : JULY 13, 2021 DATE OF PRO NOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : JULY 20 , 2021 ORDER PER BENCH: 1. BY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT ASSESSING OFFICERS SEEKS RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 21 ST AUGUST 2019, SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT ON THE GROUND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON MERIT OF THE CASE AS THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT AND HENCE, IT IS COVERED BY EXCEPTION MENTIONED IN PARA 10E OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 3/2018 DATED 11.07.2018 AS SUBSEQUENTLY CLARIFIED BY BOARD LE TTER DT. 20/08/2018 VIDE NO. 297/MISC./142/2007 - ITJ (PT.). 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. MA NO 120MUM/2020 IN ITA NO. 4315/MUM/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. WE FIND THAT EVEN GOING BY THE ST ATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE CONDITIONS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING. THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT IS THAT SINCE THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WI NG THE CASE WILL BE COVERED THE EXEMPTION UNDER CLAUSE 10 (E) OF CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 11.07.2018 READ WITH CIRCULAR DATED 20.08.2018. HOWEVER WHAT HAS CLEARLY BEEN OVERLOOKED IS THAT CLAUSE 10(E) COMES INTO PLAY ONLY WHEN THE INFORMATION IS RECEIVED FROM E XTERNAL SOURCES IN THE NATURE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. SINCE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE INFORMATION IS RECEIVED FROM AN INTERNAL AGENCY I.E., INVESTIGATION WING, CLAUSE 10(E), IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IS NOT ATTRACTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, A S ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REJECT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. WE ORDER, ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 20 TH DAY OF JULY , 202 1. SD/ - SD/ - JUSTICE P.P. BHATT PRAMOD KUMAR (PRESIDENT) (VICE PRESIDENT) MUMBAI, DATED THE 20 TH JULY , 2021 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI