Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARSHI & SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL
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.
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
2 ITAs 2264 & 2265/Mum/2016 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.
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.
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
3 ITAs 2264 & 2265/Mum/2016 Pavanan Copy to :
The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT(A)
The CIT
The DR, C-Bench () By order
Asst.