Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Mahan Industries Ltd., Gujarat vs Dcit -Cc -2(2), Mumbai on 5 November, 2020
1 ITA No.3320 & 3321/Mum/2018 Mahan Industries Ltd.
Assessment Year :2008-09 & 2009-10 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "डी" ायपीठ मुंबई म ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय ी शमीम याहया, ले खा सद एवं माननीय ी अमरजीत िसंह, ाियक सद के सम ।
BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND HON'BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3320 & 3321/Mum/2018 (िनधा रण वष / Assessment Year: 2008-09 and 2009-10) Mahan Industries Ltd. Dy. Commissioner of 3 r d Floor, D.K. House Income Tax Mithalkhali Under Bridge बनाम/ Central Circle-2(2) Ahmedabad Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, MK Marg Gujarat-380 006. Mumbai-400 020.
थायीले खासं ./जीआइआरसं ./PAN/GIR No. AABCM 0370 P (अ पीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Poojan Mehta-Ld. AR Revenue by : Shri Vijaykumar G. Subramanyan - Sr. AR-
CIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/
: 03/11/2020
Date of Hearing
घोषणा की तारीख /
: 05/11/2020
Date of Pronouncement
आदे श / O R D E R
Per Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member)
1. These are appeals by the assessee directed against common order of learned CIT appeal dated 12/03/2018 and pertains to assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Grounds read as under :-
2ITA No.3320 & 3321/Mum/2018 Mahan Industries Ltd.
Assessment Year :2008-09 & 2009-10 ITA No.3320/Mum/2018 (A.Y.2008-09) :- "The following grounds of appeal are independent of, and without prejudice to, one. another:
1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 48, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in not disposing of the grounds of appeal raised by the appellants before her.
The appellants contend that the CIT(A) ought to have specifically disposed of the grounds of appeal raised by them.
2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in issuing notice under section 153C of the Act. The appellants contend that the notice issued under section 153C is void ab initio inasmuch as the jurisdictional conditions for the issue of the said notice have not been complied with and consequently, the assessment framed is bad in law and needs to be quashed.
The appellants further, contend that no incriminating document relatable to the appellants is found during the course of search on a person referred to in section 153A and that satisfaction required by the provisions of section 153C is not recorded by the Assessing Officer of such person referred to in section 1 53 A and hence, the impugned notice issued under section 153C is ab initio void; consequently, the assessment framed is bad in law and needs to be quashed.
3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treating business loss Rs 79,93,300 comprising of share trading loss Rs 50,46,005 and other administrative expenses Rs 29,47,295 as speculation loss by invoking the provisions of Explanation to section 73 of the Act. The appellants contend that the impugned addition is not arising out of any incriminating document relatable to the appellants that is found during the course of search on a person referred to in section 153A and that satisfaction required by the provisions of section 153C is not recorded by the Assessing Officer of such person referred to in section 153 A and hence, the impugned addition is vitiated in law.
Without prejudice, the appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has fallen in error in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the business loss as speculation loss by invoking the provisions of Explanation to section 73 of the Act inasmuch as the provisions of the Explanation are not applicable to the facts of the appellants.
ITA No.3321/Mum/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) :- 3ITA No.3320 & 3321/Mum/2018 Mahan Industries Ltd.
Assessment Year :2008-09 & 2009-10 "The following grounds of appeal are independent of, and without prejudice to, one. another:
1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 48, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in not disposing of the grounds of appeal raised by the appellants before her.
The appellants contend that the CIT(A) ought to have specifically disposed of the grounds of appeal raised by them.
2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in issuing notice under section 153C of the Act. The appellants contend that the notice issued under section 153C is void ab initio inasmuch as the jurisdictional conditions for the issue of the said notice have not been complied with and consequently, the assessment framed is bad in law and needs to be quashed.
The appellants further, contend that no incriminating document relatable to the appellants is found during the course of search on a person referred to in section 153A and that satisfaction required by the provisions of section 153C is not recorded by the Assessing Officer of such person referred to in section 1 53 A and hence, the impugned notice issued under section 153C is ab initio void; consequently, the assessment framed is bad in law and needs to be quashed.
3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treating business loss Rs 83,41,160 comprising of share trading loss Rs 66,86,486 and other administrative expenses Rs 16,54,674 as speculation loss by invoking the provisions of Explanation to section 73 of the Act. The appellants contend that the impugned addition is not arising out of any incriminating document relatable to the appellants that is found during the course of search on a person referred to in section 153A and that satisfaction required by the provisions of section 153C is not recorded by the Assessing Officer of such person referred to in section 153 A and hence, the impugned addition is vitiated in law.
The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has fallen in error in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the business loss as speculation loss by invoking the provisions of Explanation to section 73 of the Act inasmuch as the provisions of the Explanation are not applicable to the facts of the appellants.
2. Grounds are common except for change in figures as applicable.
4ITA No.3320 & 3321/Mum/2018 Mahan Industries Ltd.
Assessment Year :2008-09 & 2009-10
3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that he is requesting that, assessee may be permitted to withdraw the appeal. He submitted that assessee has opted for resolution of disputed tax under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act 2020 (Act 3 of 2020).He submitted that assessee has accordingly filed the necessary declaration and competent authority has issued Form No.3 in this regard also. In the view of the matter he sought to withdraw the appeal. The Ld. DR did not have any objection.
4. Accordingly in the light of the above decision, we permit the withdrawal of above appeal accordingly. Hence these appeals are disposed off by treating them as withdrawn.
Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules on 05/11/2020 Sd/- Sd/-
(Amarjit Singh) (Shamim Yahya) ाियक सद / Judicial Member लेखा सद / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनां क Dated : 05/11/2020 Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese 5 ITA No.3320 & 3321/Mum/2018 Mahan Industries Ltd.
Assessment Year :2008-09 & 2009-10 आदे शकी ितिलिपअ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. थ / The Respondent
3. आयकरआयु)(अपील) / The CIT(A)
4. आयकरआयु)/ CIT- concerned
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड. फाईल / Guard File आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai.