ITO 8(2)(1), MUMBAI V. SHRUTI PRINT SOLUTIONS P.LTD, MUMBAI

MA 43/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7599 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH LD
• Assessee Lawyers: DR K SIVARAM; NEELAM JADHAV LD ARS
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Tax effect; Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM M.A. NO. 43/MUM/2019 [ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.2400/MUM/2017] ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) INCOME TAX OFFICER - 8(2)(1) ROOM NO.477B, 4 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. / VS. M/S. SHRUTI PRINT SOLUT ION S P VT. LTD. A/2/63, SHAH & NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SITARAM JADHAV ROAD LOWER PAREL (W), MUMBAI-400 013. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAJCS-7831-H ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : DR. K.SIVARAM, SR.ADVOCATE & MS. NEELAM JADHAV-LD.ARS DEPARTMENT BY : CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH-LD.DR !' / DATE OF HEARING : 10/05/2019 #$ !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/07/2019 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): - 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPLICATION, THE REVENUE SEEKS RE CALL OF TRIBUNAL ORDER ITA NO. 2400/MUM/2017 PASSED IN REVENUES APPEAL ON 21/08/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2 2. DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE APPLICATION, LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR], SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUES A PPEALS WERE DISMISSED KEEPING IN VIEW LOW-TAX EFFECT CIRCULAR NO. 03/2018 ISSUED BY CBDT ON 11/07/2018. 3. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BASED UPON INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE DGIT (INVESTIGATION), MUMBAI TRIGGERED BY INFOR MATION FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, MAHARASHTRA THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE BOGUS PURCHASES FROM CERTAIN HAWALA DEALERS. 4. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CLAUSE 10 OF C IRCULAR NO. 03/2018 DATED 11/07/2018 STOOD AMENDED BY THE SAME AUTHORIT Y ON 20/08/2018 WHEREIN NEW EXCEPTIONS (E) & (F) WERE ADDED. THEREF ORE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE COVERED BY EXCEPTION (E) OF CLAUSE 10 OF THE SAID CIRCULAR AS AMENDED W.E.F 20/08/2018, WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 10. ADVERSE JUDGMENTS RELATING TO THE FOLLOWING ISS UES SHOULD BE CONTESTED ON MERITS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE TAX EFFECT ENTAILED IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 ABOVE OR THERE IS NO TAX EFFECT : - . (E) WHERE ADDITION IS BASED ON INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES IN THE NATURE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES SUCH AS CBI / ED / DRI / SFIO / DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE (DGGI). . IN THE AFORESAID BACKGROUND, LD. DR PLEADED FOR REC ALL OF THE STATED ORDER. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. SR. COUNSEL, DR. K. SIVAR AM SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMENDMENT WAS NEVER AVAILABLE BEFORE THE BENCH AT THE TIME OF HEARING. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE RECENT DEC ISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL 3 RENDERED IN ACIT V/S RAM BUILDERS (MA NO. 04/MUM/2019 ORDER DATED 20/03/2019) TO REBUT THE STAND OF REVENUE. THE SUBM ISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO SUBMIT THAT INFORMATION FROM SALES TAX DEPA RTMENT COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE COVERED UNDER THE STATED CLAUSE. 6. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT THE CIT ED DECISION OF TRIBUNAL WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS SINCE THE REVI SED CIRCULAR, IN THAT CASE, WAS NEVER IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING I.E. 10/08/2018 AND THEREFORE, THERE COULD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE SAME. HOWEV ER, THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS HEARD AND PRONOUNCED ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 21/08/2018. ON THAT DATE, CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 11/07/2018 STOOD AMENDED W.E.F. 20/08/2018 AND WAS VERY MUCH APPLICABLE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. 7. PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE FIND THAT REASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS WERE TRIGGERED ON THE BASIS OF INVESTIGATIONS BEING CARR IED OUT BY SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, MAHARASHTRA AND THE SAID AUTHORITY, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WOULD CONSTITUTE EXTERNAL SOURCES IN THE NATURE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, COVERED BY CLAUSE (E) OF PARA 10. THE SPECIFIC AUTH ORITIES AS MENTIONED IN THE SAID CLAUSE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATI ON ONLY AND COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE A EXHAUSTIVE LIST WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE USE OF WORDS SUCH AS 8. THEREFORE, FINDING MERITS IS REVENUES SUBMISSIO NS, THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ITA NO. 2400/MUM/2017 DATED 21/08/2 018 STANDS RECALLED FOR FRESH HEARING ON MERITS. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECT ED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR FRESH HEARING IN DUE COURSE AFTER GIVING DUE INTIMA TION TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 9. IN RESULT, THE APPLICATION STANDS ALLOWED. 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JULY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 23/07/2019 SR.PS:-JAISY VARGHESE / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT 3. # # $ ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. # # $ / CIT CONCERNED 5. %& !'( , # ( , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. &*+, / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.