MBM TUBES P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 5(2)(3), MUMBAI

MA 553/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2971 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2022
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

Page | 1 MA no. 553/Mum/2019 M/s MBM Tubes P. Ltd; A.Y. 10–11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM MA No. 553/Mum/2019 (Arising in ITA no. 5938/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2010–11) M/s MB M T ubes P vt. Ltd c/o Mohan lal Jain & Co. (CA ) Off . no. 10, Charte r ed House, GF, D r. C.H . Stree t , Mar ine Line s, Mum bai-400 002 Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2)(3) MK Road, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400 020 (Applicant) (Respondent) PAN No.AAFCM4177L Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Sr. AR Date of hearing: 24.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. MA No. 553/Mum/2019 is filed by the assessee in ITA No. 5938/Mum/2014 and ITA No.3027/Mum/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 in order dated 30 th July, 2019, stating that there is an error in the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench wherein the binding decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17 vs. M/s Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. in income tax appeal no.1004 of 2016, though cited was not considered by the co-ordinate Bench. Therefore, there is a mistake apparent Page | 2 MA no. 553/Mum/2019 M/s MBM Tubes P. Ltd; A.Y. 10–11 on record and hence, the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench needs to be recalled. 02. Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Same is the fate at least 15 times on the earlier occasions the matter was called for hearing. In view of this, this Misc. Application is decided on the merits of the case as per information available on record. 03. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that there is no mistake in the order. 04. We have carefully considered the contention of the learned Departmental Representative as well as the arguments raised in the Misc. Application. The brief fact shows that the assessee filed appeal challenging the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases. The co-ordinate Bench confirmed the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchases amounting to ₹5,99,630/-. During the course of hearing, Mr. Sanjay Kapadia submitted Paper Book wherein he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17 vs. M/s Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. and PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (SLP No. 12670/2018) (Supreme Court). The co-ordinate Bench did not consider any of the above decisions. According to us, not considering the binding judicial precedent of Jurisdictional High Court makes the order suffering from mistake apparent on record. Accordingly, we recall the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench and direct the registry to fix the same for hearing after giving notice to Page | 3 MA no. 553/Mum/2019 M/s MBM Tubes P. Ltd; A.Y. 10–11 the assessee. Accordingly, the Misc. Application filed by the assessee is allowed. 05. In the result, the MA of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.09.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Mumbai, Dated: 02.09.2022 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai