ALPINE MINMETALS INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1932/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 June 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to substantiate its claim of erroneous calculations in the M.B. Shah report or to refute the findings of under-invoicing. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were found to have no substance.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against reassessment orders for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12, initiated under Section 143(3)/148, based on the Justice M.B. Shah report identifying illegal mining activities and under-invoicing of iron ore exports. The assessee claimed the report's calculations, based on Wet Metric Ton, were erroneous.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the reassessment based on the Justice M.B. Shah report for illegal mining and under-invoicing was valid, and if the assessee could prove the report's calculations were erroneous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR &, Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07/06/2024Pronounced: 27/06/2024

The appeals are filed by the assessee against order dated 23.06.2022 for relevant assessment years arises out of the assessment orders dated 31.03.2016 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’].

2.

The cases were called for hearing. None has appeared for the assessee/appellant and the record shows earlier on 17.07.2023 Shri Ankit Kansal, CA has appeared and sought adjournment. Thereafter adjournment application was received by another Authorized Representative. Thereafter none appeared for the assessee on 21.12.2023 and the bench had ordered for issuing of notices by RPAD/E-mail. Notices have been issued but still none appeared. No further opportunity is justified. Accordingly arguments of Ld. Departmental Representative were heard.

3.

The issues involved in the two appeals are similar. The notices for reassessment were issued under section 143(3)/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee company is engaged in business of trading in iron ore and had filed the return for respective assessment years. There was report of Hon’ble Justice M.B. Shah to detect illegal mining activities of iron ore etc. in the state of Orissa, Jharkhand and Goa, The report was examined by DGIT (Inv.) Kolkatta and based upon same the reassessment was opened on three grounds – first illegal mining activities of Iron ore, second unaccounted mining activities and third large scale of under invoicing exports.

4.

The assessee had claimed that in the report all calculations have been done on the basis of Wet Metric Ton which is completely erroneous and all differences arise for the same. However

Assessing Officer was not satisfied and relying on records and evidences forming part of the report of Hon’ble Justice M B Shah made the additions for two years which has been sustained by the Learned CIT(A).

5. After going through the orders of the authorities below it comes up that the assessee has failed to substantiate the claim of a wrong report on the basis of substantial evidences. The case of under invoicing was examined on the basis of export value taken from other exporters. If there were any variations due to demand and supply as on the date of agreement, it was to be established by evidence but there seems to have been complete failure in this regard from the assessee. The grounds have no substance.

5.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27/06/2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →