Anjani Steel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

MA 263/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0978 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAGWATI CHARANSR
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

1 M.A NO. 263/DEL/2020 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: FRIDAY A NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER MA NO. 2 63/DEL/2020 IN ( I.T.A. NO. 5675/DEL /2017 (A.Y 2011-12) M/S ANJANI STEELS LTD. UNIT NO. 503, FIFTH FLOOR, DDA BUILDING, DISTT CENTRE, LAXMI NAGAR DELHI-110092 PAN: AABCA3530D (APPLICANT) VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE2(2) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SH. VED JAIN, ADV WITH SH. ASHISH GOYAL, CA RESPONDENT BY SH.BHAGWATI CHARAN,SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN RESPECT OF ORDER DATED 23/10/2020. 2. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN PARA 7 OF THE ORDER DATED 23/10/2020, THE RULE QUOTED WAS 26 BUT THE ACTUAL R ULE IS 27 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNALS) RULES 1963. T HUS, IT IS A TYPICAL ERROR WHICH SHOULD BE RECTIFIED. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN PARA 8 OF THE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL INADVERTENTLY DATE OF HEARING 11.12.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT .12.2020 2 M.A NO. 263/DEL/2020 TYPED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISREGARDED APPLI CATION FOR ADMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND THERE IS NO SPECIFIC COMMENT IN THE REMAND REPORT F ILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. AR S UBMITTED THAT THE CORRECT FACTS IN THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) ARE AS FOLLOWS:- IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND HAS REBUTTED THE ALLEGATION OF THE A O IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS REGARDS THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY CONFIRMATION FROM M/S ABHINAV STEEL PVT. LTD. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSFER OF ROLLIN G DIVISION AT SATHARIA WAS PURSUANT TO THE MOU BETWEE N THE TWO COMPANIES AND THE COPY OF SAID MOU WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO ALONG WITH OBJECTIONS TO TH E REASONS RECORDED U/S 148. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO F ILED COPY OF SAID MOU IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE ME AT PAGE 96-102. ON PERUSAL OF THE MOU IT IS NOTICED TH AT THE SAME IS SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE TWO COMPA NIES. AS PER THE CLAUSE 6(SIX) OF THE TERMS AND CONDITION S OF THE MOU, THE ROLLING MILL BUSINESS AT SATHARIA WHIC H WAS BEING RUN BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS TRANSFERRED TO M/S ABHINAV STEEL PVT. LTD. ACCORDIN GLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT NO CONFIRMATION FROM M/S ABHINAV STEEL PVT. LTD. WAS FILED IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AS THE COPY OF MOU FILED BEFORE THE AO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF 3 M.A NO. 263/DEL/2020 CONFIRMATION. FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE APPEL LANT THAT A DETAILED DISCLOSURE REGARDING THE SAID ARRANGEMENT HAS ALSO BEEN MADE IN THE NOTE TO ACCOU NTS OF THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BOTH THE COMPANIES. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS MENTIONED IN TH E ORDER DATED 23/10/2020 BY THE TRIBUNAL IS MISTAKE APPARENT ON R ECORD AND THE SAME SHOULD BE DELETED AS THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED B Y THE CIT(A). 3. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARE THE TYPOGRAP HICAL AND INADVERTENTLY MISTAKES. EMERGING FROM THE ORDER DA TED 23/10/2020. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS INADVERTENT MISTAKE IN THE PARA 7 THAT OF TYPOGRAPHICAL AND IN PARA 8 THAT OF MISTAKE REGA RDING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. HENCE, THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION IS A LLOWED AND WE MODIFY BOTH THE PARAS AS FOLLOWS AND THE SAME SHOUL D BE READ IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 23.10.2020 AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. DURING THE HEARING TH E LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT APPLICATION UNDER RULE 27 FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE WITHDRAWN. THEREFORE, WE ARE DISMISSING THE A PPLICATION UNDER RULE 27 AS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 4 M.A NO. 263/DEL/2020 SECONDLY ABOUT PARA 8 THE SAME READ AS UNDER:- AS REGARDS THE MAIN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN A CATE GORICAL FINDING THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE TRANSFER OF ROLLING DIVISION AT SATHARIA WAS PURSUA NT TO THE MOU BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES AND THE COPY OF SAID MOU WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . ON PERUSA L OF THE MOU IT IS NOTICED THAT THE SAME IS SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE TWO COMPANIES. AS PER THE CLAUSE 6(SIX) OF THE TERMS AN D CONDITIONS OF THE MOU, THE ROLLING MILL BUSINESS AT SATHARIA WHIC H WAS BEING RUN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS TRANSFERRED TO M/S ABHINAV STEEL PVT. LTD. THUS, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT NO CONFIRMATION FROM M/S ABHINAV STEEL PVT. LTD. WA S FILED IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AS THE COPY OF MOU FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF CONFIRMATION. T HERE IS A CLEAR FINDING BY THE CIT(A) THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS ON 31/3/2011 AN AMOUNT OF RS. 18,85,46,0 88/- WAS SHOWN AS RECEIVABLE FROM M/S ABHINAV STEELS LIMITED . THE TRANSFER OF INVENTORY OF RS. 6,09,43,809/- WAS DULY RECORDED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THUS THE SAME CANNOT BE REGAR DED AS THE STOCK SOLD OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THESE DOC UMENTS WERE VERY WELL AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL. IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, ALL THESE CAL CULATIONS AND THE INVENTORY SPECIFICATIONS WERE GIVEN WHICH WAS PLACE D BEFORE THE 5 M.A NO. 263/DEL/2020 CIT (APPEALS). SINCE THE DEMERGER HAS TAKEN PLACE O N BOOK VALUE, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THUS, THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE CIT (APPEALS). HENCE, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THUS, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18TH DA Y OF DECEMBER, 2020 SD/- SD/- (G. S. PANNU) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDIC IAL MEMBER DATED: /12/2020 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 6 M.A NO. 263/DEL/2020 DATE OF DICTATION 11.12.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 11.12.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK . DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER