DCIT CEN 8.2, MUMBAI vs. KARAMTARA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “E” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) DCIT, Cen. Circle-8(1) 565, 6th Floor Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Karamtara Engineering Private Limited 705, Morya Land Mark Andheri West Mumbai-400 053. PAN : AABCK1921E Appellant
Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-
In the above captioned appeal, following grounds of appeal were raised by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2011-12 :-
1. a. The Ld AO. has erred in disallowing depreciation on paintings amounting to Rs. 10,16,460/- without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The same be considered and the additions be deleted.
b. The Ld. AO has failed to consider the detailed submission filed by the assessee vide letter dated 12.10.2018 . The same be considered and the additions be deleted.
c. The Ld. AO has failed to consider that the said expenses have been allowed in the past assessments. Making an addition now amounts to change of opinion which is bad in law and needs to be quashed.
2. a. The Learned AO. has erred in treating Rs.1,77,50,390/- as purchases from Hawala dealers by relying on the details found during the search proceedings and has erred in treating them as bogus purchases without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The same be considered and the additions be deleted.
b. The learned A.O. has failed to consider that the assessee had proved the genuineness of the transaction by providing all invoices
Karamtara Engineering Private Limited
2
with delivery challans, ledger accounts, GRN notes, stock register, bank payment details etc. vide its letter dated 20.12.2018. The methodology adopted while making purchases from above parties is same as with the other parties which the Ld. AO has failed to consider. The same be considered and the additions be deleted.
c. Without prejudice to the above, The Learned A.O. has erred in adding the entire amount of Rs. 1,77,50,390/- as non-genuine purchases without appreciating that in assessee's own case, the Hon. ITAT has confirmed additions @ 5% of the alleged purchases only. The same be considered and the additions be restricted to 5%
of the alleged purchases only.
3. The Learned A.O. erred in computing Interest u/s 234B of Income
Tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 23,42,259/- without considering the facts &
circumstances of the case. The same be considered.
The Learned A.O. erred in levying interest u/s 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the fact that interest u/s 234C is applicable on retuned income and not on assessed income. The same be considered and the Interest be restricted to Rs. 12,66,203/- as per returned income. 2. During the appeal proceedings before the ITAT, the Ld. AR raised a preliminary objection that in Form No. 36 filed by the Revenue, it was mentioned that the tax effect related to grounds of appeal was mentioned as Rs. 1,77,50,390/- which is incorrect. The amount mentioned in tax effect column is actually the disputed addition by Revenue and the tax effect is less than Rs. 60 lakhs. Hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue should be dismissed in view of the CBDT’s Circular No. 09 OF 2024 dated 17.09.2024, where it was mentioned that the Revenue should not file appeal before the ITAT if the tax effect on the disputed addition is less than Rs. 60 lakhs. The Ld. DR did not dispute this fact.
In view of the above, the appeal of Revenue is Dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/03/2025. (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 18/03/2025
Karamtara Engineering Private Limited
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(