DCIT 9(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ARTEK EXPORTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5543/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 April 2018AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the appeals for AY 2011-12 had been restored to the Assessing Officer by a previous Tribunal order. Therefore, the current appeals were also set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13, which had relied on a predecessor's order for AY 2011-12. The issues involved rejection of books of accounts and deduction u/s 10AA.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in relying on a previous year's order when that order itself was set aside and restored to the AO. The validity of the rejection of books and the claim of deduction u/s 10AA were also in question.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10AA,Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI

For Appellant: Ms. Arju Garodia, Shri Lalchand Choudhary
Hearing: 09/04/2018Pronounced: 09/04/2018

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in relying on his predecessor's order for A.Y.2011-12 wherein the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provision of Section 145(3) of the Act and rejected the books of accounts of the assessee company?

2.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.10AA of the Act by ignoring the fact that as the reduction of deduction u/s.10AA has been made on the basis of assessment order for A.Y.2011-12 in which detailed enquiries were made?

3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that Assessing Officer failed to record any specific defect in the books as Assessing Officer had given detailed reasoning along with specific findings for rejection of books?

The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the DCIT 9(1)(2) be restored.”

ITA No. 5544/Mum/2016 :-

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that assessee has booked expenses relating to AEPL? The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the DCIT 9(1)(2) be restored.

2. At the time of hearing, it was a common point between the parties that the disputes raised in the respective appeals stand on an identical footing to the issues in the case of respective assessees for Assessment Year 2011-12. From the respective orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A), it clearly emerges that reference has been made to the proceedings in the case of the respective assessees for Assessment Year 2011-12. At the time of hearing, it was also a common point that when the respective appeals for Assessment Year 2011-12 came up before the Tribunal vide & 4417/Mum/2015 dated 06.02.2018, the matter has been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination of the respective claims afresh and in accordance with law. The learned representative for the respondent-assessees fairly conceded that the order of the Tribunal dated 06.02.2018 (supra) continues to hold the field and has not been altered by any higher authority. Therefore, considering that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) have based their findings purely on the basis of the orders passed by them in the earlier Assessment Year 2011-12, which matter has since been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal, the captioned appeals, in our view, also deserve to be disposed off in the like manner. Therefore, without going into further detail, following the decision of the Tribunal dated 06.02.2018 (supra), we set-aside the respective orders of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to follow the directions of the Tribunal dated 06.02.2018 (supra) and decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law.

3.

Resultantly, both the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The above decision was pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties at the conclusion of the hearing on 9th April, 2018.

More judgments on Section 10AA

All 857 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →