DCIT CENT. CIR. -1(2), MUMBAI vs. GITANJALI GEMS LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2264/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 July 2022AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee company's insolvency plea was admitted by the NCLT. As the further outcome (liquidation or not) was unavailable, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the common order of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The assessee company, engaged in diamond and bullion business, was subject to search and seizure actions.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the status of the assessee company due to insolvency proceedings and its impact on the appeal proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 133A,Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARSHI & SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Koli – (CIT DR)

Per : Kavitha Rajagopal (JM): These appeals have been filed by the Revenue as against the common order of Ld.CIT(A)-47, Mumbai, dated 321/01/2016 for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 on various grounds.

2.

Briefly stated, the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading and export of diamond and bullion. Pursuant to a search and seizure action under section 132 and survey action under section 133A conducted in the case of the assessee company on 29/11/2012, assessment orders dated 24/03/2014 were passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the impugned assessment years. As both these appeals have identical facts and common issues, a common order is passed.

3.

The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2006-07 on 30/11/2006 declaring total income of Rs.12,11,70,750/- and for the assessment year 2007-08, the return was filed on 30/10/2007 declaring total income of Rs.27,35,35,862/-. Several additions / disallowances were made in the orders under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act dated 24/03/2014. 4. Inspite of various opportunities given, there was no representation from the assessee. During the appellate proceedings, the Ld.DR made an oral representation by stating that the Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of NCLT has admitted the Insolvency plea filed by ICICI in respect of the assessee company, which has been admitted. It was stated that further result thereof as to whether the company has been referred for liquidation or not, is not available. It is to be noted that the Assessing Officer is directed to bring on record the Official Liquidator / the new management, whatsoever may be, if liquidation has been ordered. Therefore, we deem it fit to dismiss the appeals with the liberty given to the Ld.Assessing Officer to prefer fresh appeals before us, if the situation so warrants. In the circumstances, these two appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

5.

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/07/2022. (PRASHANT MAHARSHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dt : 29/07/2022 Pavanan Copy to :

1.

The Appellant

2.

The Respondent

3.

The CIT(A)

4.

The CIT

5.

The DR, C-Bench () By order

Asst.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →