THE ITO WD 23(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.R. INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6132/MUM/2007Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 September 2017AY 2003-20043 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not based on a true appreciation of facts, as the Rs. 40,00,000/- was part of a larger surrender by a partner. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's order.

What were the facts?

During a survey, the assessee declared Rs. 40,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) brought this entire amount to tax. The CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 30,00,000/-, stating no specific finding by the survey team.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in granting relief on a declared amount without proper appreciation of the facts and the AO's findings regarding the surrender.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Hearing: 21/06/2017

ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2003-04. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIII, Mumbai and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

2.

We find from the perusal of the record that there was no compliance by the assessee to the hearing fixed before the Tribunal on 04.02.2015, 03.08.2015, 07.03.2016, 20.09.2016 and 21.06.2017.

Therefore, we are proceeding to dispose off the present appeal on the basis of documents available on record and the contentions of the Ld. DR.

3.

We find that in the instant case the Revenue had conducted a survey in the business premises of the assessee. During the course of survey, the assessee made a declaration of Rs.40,00,000/-. During the course of assessment, the assessee made a claim of having disclosed income of Rs.10,00,000/-. The AO relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh Chabra vs. Union of India 135 Taxation 711/712 and brought to tax Rs.40,00,000/-. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed relief of Rs.30,00,000/- out of surrendered income of Rs.40,00,000/- for the FY 2002-03 relevant to the AY 2003-04 stating that there had been no specific finding by the survey team regarding Rs.40,00,000/-. We find that the above order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not based on true appreciation of facts as Rs.200,00,000/- was surrendered by Mr. Gulab J. Gala, partner of the assessee-firm in respect of seven entities of which one is the assessee-firm and the said Rs.40,00,000/- is a part of the above amount. We find that the AO has given specific finding on the above in the assessment order dated 06.12.2006 passed by him. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the order of the AO.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →