ITO WARD 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. STIACK ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH (J.M):

The Appellant, M/s Stiack Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] qua the assessment order for Assessment year 2010-11 on the grounds inter-alia that:-

“i) The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in giving relief in respect of addition on account of bogus purchase after nothing that appellant failed to negate the information based on enquiry conducted by DGIT(Inv), Mumbai, triggered by information from the Sales Tax Department that they were hawala dealers and providing accommodation bills. ii) The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in restricting the addition to 12.5% on account of bogus purchases as the parties from whom purchases were made were hawala dealers and absolute burden of proof as cast on the assessee and this burden of proof never shift to the Department. iii) The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that this being a case of utter disregard and subversion of law, the burden of proof cast on the assessee was of a very high degree and assessee failed to discharge this burden. iv) The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law, in not giving effect to section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act which clearly lays down that if a fact in knowledge of a party is not explained adverse inference can be drawn against the party possessing the knowledge of fact/information.”

“This circular will apply to SLPs/appeals/cross objection/reference to be filed henceforth in SC/HCS/Tribunal and it also apply the retrospectively to pending SLPs/appeals/cross objection/reference. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn not pressed.”

In view of the matter since tax effect involved in the present appeal are below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-, the same is not maintainable, hence dismissed having been become infructous. However in case this appeal falls within any of the exceptions the Revenue may seek recall of the order in order to restore the present appeal.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09/05/2023.