ACIT 12(1), MUMBAI vs. K.J CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4740/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 June 2016AY 2003-044 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine due to the low tax effect, making the assessee's cross-objection infructuous. Therefore, both the appeal and the cross-objection were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 20,29,209/- on account of bogus purchases. The assessee also filed a cross-objection. The tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circular for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. A secondary issue raised in the cross-objection concerned the validity of reopening the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri. Morya Pratap
For Respondent: Shri. Rahul K. Hakani
Hearing: 02/06/2016Pronounced: 02/06/2016

Heard together (2 matters)

CO No. 160/MUM/2012
ITA No. 4740/MUM/2011

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

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.

1.

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.”

2.

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.

3.

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

4.

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.

More judgments on Section 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →