SHRI BHARATSINGH S. PUROHIT, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(2), MUMBAI

MA 405/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4597 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMATHA MALLAMUDI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Rectification of order
• Section: 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 404 & 405/MUM/2019 (OUT OF ITA NOS. 1281 & 1282/MUM/2018) : A.YS : 20 1 0 - 1 1 & 2011 - 12 BHARATSINGH S. PUROHIT PROP. M/S. GEETA STEEL & ENGG. CO., 114 - B, OFFICE NO. 1, GROUND FLOOR, V.P. ROAD, R.K. WADI, OPP. POST OFFICE, MUMBAI 400 004. PAN : A OGPP6328G (APPLICANT) VS. IT O - 19 ( 1 ) (2) , MUMBAI (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SAMATHA MALLAMUDI DATE OF HEARING : 08/11/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 /11/2019 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, ASSESSEE SEEKS RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE COMMON ORDER DATED 22.10.2018 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 1281 & 1282/MUM/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12. THESE WERE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOTED THAT THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS W ERE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHEREIN THE ADDITION OF BOGUS PURCHASES WAS R ESTRICTED TO 6.5% AS AGAINST 15% DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2 MA NOS. 404 & 405/MUM/2019 BHARATSINGH S. PUROHIT 2. WE FIND THAT IN THE SAID ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, THE TRIBUNAL HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 09.10.2018 ON SIMILAR FACTS . Q UOTING THE SAID ORDER , THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). NOW, ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT, WHICH WAS DENIED. HENCE, IT HAS BEE N PLEADED THAT THE OTHER GROUNDS OF JURISDICTION HAVE NOT BEEN DEALT WITH AND THAT THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SEVERAL NOTICES. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, I FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) WAS A COMBINED ORDER FOR THREE YEARS. THE TRIBUNAL, FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS OF 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12, HAD FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. I FIND THAT THE MERIT OF THE CASE W AS DECI DED BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER DULY CONSIDERING THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE COMBINED ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HENCE, THERE IS NO OCCASION TO REVIEW THE SAID ORDER. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CHALLENGED THE GROU ND OF JURISDICTION SUBMITTING THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE SAME. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL, HENCE, THESE ORDERS ARE RECALLED ONLY FOR THE LIMITED PURP OSE OF CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE CASE S IN THE NORMAL COURSE ONLY TO CONSIDER THE JURISDICTIONAL ASPECT RAISED IN GROUND NO. 1, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN C ONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL 3 MA NOS. 404 & 405/MUM/2019 BHARATSINGH S. PUROHIT 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 1 T H NOVEMBER, 2019. SD/ - (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE : 1 1 T H NOVEMBER, 2019 *SSL* COPY TO : 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4) THE CIT CONCERNED 5) THE D.R, SMC BENCH, MUMBAI 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T, MUMBAI