ITO, W-3(2), Thane V. PRADEEP B HASKAR SAKPALE, THANE

MA 86/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4439 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR MENON
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D B ENCH , MUMBAI BEFOR E: HON BL E JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, PRESIDENT & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM M.A. NO. 86 / MUM/2020 (ARISING OUT OF I TA NO. 344 /MUM/ 2019 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 ) ITO - W - 3(2) R N 4, 6 TH FLOO R B - WING, IT PARK R.N.16Z, WAGLE THANE 400 064 VS. SHRI PRADEEP B H ASKAR SAKPALE, 204, B - 4, SWASTIK PARK NEXT TOM BRAHMANAND AZAD NAGAR, THANE - 400604 PAN/GIR NO. ALJPS9376D (APPELLANT ) .. (RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MENON ASSESSEE BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 26 / 03 /202 1 DATE OF PRONO U NCEMENT 26 / 03 /202 1 / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M) : BY VIRTUE OF TH IS MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION , THE REVENUE SEE KS TO RECALL THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL ON 21/08/2019 W HEREIN THIS APPEAL WA S DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY FOLLOWING THE CBDT CIRCUL AR NO.17/2019 DATED 08/08/2019 BY HOLDING THA T THE TAX EFFECT ON DISPUTED ISSUE WAS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT FOR PREFERRING AP PE AL BY THE REVENUE BEFORE TH IS TRIBUNAL. WE FIND THAT REVENUE HAD MENTIONED IN ITS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THAT THE ADDITION MADE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF M A NO . 86 /MUM/ 2020 SHRI PRAD EEP BHASKAR SAKPALE 2 BOGUS PURCHASES WHICH WA S BASED ON INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM EXTERNAL AGENCIES AND THEREBY THE S AME FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION CLAUSE PROVIDED IN P A RA 10 (E) OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR. WE FIND T HAT THE IMP UGNED APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CANCELLATION OF PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LD. AO ON THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE SAID EXCE PTION CLAUSE PARA 10 (E) WOULD APPLY ONL Y FOR THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND NOT FOR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THE SAID AP PEAL DO ES NOT FALL UNDER THE EXCEPTION CLAUSE AND ACCORDING LY, THIS TRIBUNAL HAD RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID CBDT CIRCU LAR. HENCE, NO ERROR COULD BE ATTRIBUTED IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WARRANTING ANY RECTIFICATION. 2. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCE D ON 26 / 03 / 202 1 BY WAY OF PROPER M ENTIONING IN T HE NO TICE BOARD. SD/ - ( JUSTI CE P.P. BHATT ) SD/ - (M.BALAGANESH) PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER MUMBAI ; DATED 26 / 03 / 202 1 KARUNA , SR.PS COPY OF THE O RDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2 . THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. M A NO . 86 /MUM/ 2020 SHRI PRAD EEP BHASKAR SAKPALE 3 BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGIST RAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 4. CIT 5. DR, ITA T, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//