Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)
The present appeal 31/03/2011 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-23, Mumbai for the Asst. year 2003-04.
CO No. 160/M/2012 Assessment Year: 2003-04 The assessee has also filed cross appeal No CO 160/M/2012. Since both the appeal and cross appeal pertain to the same assessee for the same assessment year, both were clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
The revenue has challenged the impugned order dated 31/03/2011 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the following effective grounds:-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,29,209/- on bogus purchase treating the expenditure not incurred for the purpose of business.
1(a). While doing so the Ld. CIT(A) has not deliberated upon the Assessing Officer ‘s observation of genuineness of purchase in terms of how the goods were transported, stored, lorry receipts, delivery challans etc.
2. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”
At the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee pointed out that the tax involved in this case is below Rs. 10,00,000/-. As per the latest CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10th December, 2015, new guidelines of monetary limit for filing of appeals by the Department has been issued, whereby the tax effect for filing of appeal before the ITAT has been prescribed as amount exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs. In the said Circular, it has been specifically CO No. 160/M/2012 Assessment Year: 2003-04 clarified that the said instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals. The Ld. DR. did not raise any objection. In view of the said Circular, the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable. We, therefore, dismiss the same in limine. CO 160/Mum/2012.
The assessee has filed the present Cross Objection on the following grounds:-
“1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the reopening is bad in law as the sanction of Commissioner of Chief Commissioner is not obtained u/s 151 of the Income Tax, 1961 as the reopening is beyond 4 years and the original Assessment is made u/s 143(3).
2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the reopening is bad in law as there is a change of opinion as the original assessment was made u/s. 143(3) and assessee has submitted all details relating to M/s. Pratik Sales Corporation and no addition was made thereon.
The Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the reopening is bad in law as there are no recorded reasons and the reasons for reopening supplied to the assessee were only summary of purported recorded reasons.
Merits
The Learned CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition as the entire building material supplied by M/s. Pratik Sales Corporation was CO No. 160/M/2012 Assessment Year: 2003-04
consumed during the year and the Gross Profit ratio and Net Profit ratio of the relevant year is consistent with earlier and later years.”
2. Since we have already dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, the present cross objection of the assessee has become infructuous and the same is therefore dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the department and Cross Objection filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2003-04 are dismissed.