MAHAN INDUSTRIES LTD.,GUJARAT vs. DCIT -CC -2(2), MUMBAI

Per Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) 1. These are appeals by the assessee directed against common order of learned CIT appeal dated 12/03/2018 and pertains to assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Grounds read as under :-

1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 48, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in not disposing of the grounds of appeal raised by the appellants before her. The appellants contend that the CIT(A) ought to have specifically disposed of the grounds of appeal raised by them.

2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in issuing notice under section 153C of the Act. The appellants contend that the notice issued under section 153C is void ab initio inasmuch as the jurisdictional conditions for the issue of the said notice have not been complied with and consequently, the assessment framed is bad in law and needs to be quashed.

The appellants further, contend that no incriminating document relatable to the appellants is found during the course of search on a person referred to in section 153A and that satisfaction required by the provisions of section 153C is not recorded by the Assessing Officer of such person referred to in section 1 53 A and hence, the impugned notice issued under section 153C is ab initio void; consequently, the assessment framed is bad in law and needs to be quashed.

3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treating business loss Rs 79,93,300 comprising of share trading loss Rs 50,46,005 and other administrative expenses Rs 29,47,295 as speculation loss by invoking the provisions of Explanation to section 73 of the Act. The appellants contend that the impugned addition is not arising out of any incriminating document relatable to the appellants that is found during the course of search on a person referred to in section 153A and that satisfaction required by the provisions of section 153C is not recorded by the Assessing Officer of such person referred to in section 153 A and hence, the impugned addition is vitiated in law.

Without prejudice, the appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has fallen in error in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the business loss as speculation loss by invoking the provisions of Explanation to section 73 of the Act inasmuch as the provisions of the Explanation are not applicable to the facts of the appellants.

ITA No.3321/Mum/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) :- & 3321/Mum/2018 Mahan Industries Ltd. Assessment Year :2008-09 & 2009-10 “The following grounds of appeal are independent of, and without prejudice to, one. another:

1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 48, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in not disposing of the grounds of appeal raised by the appellants before her. The appellants contend that the CIT(A) ought to have specifically disposed of the grounds of appeal raised by them.

2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in issuing notice under section 153C of the Act. The appellants contend that the notice issued under section 153C is void ab initio inasmuch as the jurisdictional conditions for the issue of the said notice have not been complied with and consequently, the assessment framed is bad in law and needs to be quashed.

The appellants further, contend that no incriminating document relatable to the appellants is found during the course of search on a person referred to in section 153A and that satisfaction required by the provisions of section 153C is not recorded by the Assessing Officer of such person referred to in section 1 53 A and hence, the impugned notice issued under section 153C is ab initio void; consequently, the assessment framed is bad in law and needs to be quashed.

The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has fallen in error in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the business loss as speculation loss by invoking the provisions of Explanation to section 73 of the Act inasmuch as the provisions of the Explanation are not applicable to the facts of the appellants.