TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation received from the DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai, and not on the basis of any information received from an external source in the nature of law enforcement agencies, viz. CBI/ED/DRI/SFIP/Directorate General GST Intelligence (DGGI), therefore, as stated by the ld. A.R., and rightly so, the exception carved out in Para 10(e) of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 (as amended on 20.08.2018) would not come into play. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that as the 'tax effect' involved in the present appeal filed by the revenue is lower than that contemplated in the CBDT circular No. 17/2019, therefore, the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable. - ITA No. 120/MUM/2020 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2021 - S. Rifaur Rahman, Member (A) And Ravis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) at an income of ₹ 2,11,60,660/-. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, that the assessee as a beneficiary had obtained bogus purchase bills of ₹ 17,17,258/- its case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O. that the assessee had claimed to have made purchases amounting to ₹ 17,17,258/- from the following 7 tainted parties: Sr. No. Name of the Parties PAN Amount of bogus purchase 1. Akshar Distributors Pvt. Ltd. AAHCA6544M 2,55,398 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anjara Enterprises. On a perusal of the details filed by the assessee the CIT(A) found the aforesaid claim to be in order. As such, the CIT(A) being of the view that the assessee could not be fastened with an addition on the basis of an unverified statement of a third party, thus, vacated the addition of ₹ 1,78,500/- that was made by the A.O. qua the aforesaid party. As regards the remaining purchases, it was observed by the CIT(A) that the amount reflected against one of the party, viz. M/s. Ramdev Trading Company (₹ 4,75,488/-) pertained to two transactions, viz. (i) bill of ₹ 1,31,040/- qua purchase of steel sheets; and (ii) balance amount of ₹ 3,44,448/- that was booked by the assessee under the head, viz. 'r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee had stated that the impugned purchases of ₹ 3,31,200/- made from M/s. Ramdev Trading Company may be disallowed. It was further observed by the CIT(A) that considering the fact that the assessee had only claimed depreciation on the 'Fixed assets' of ₹ 11,48,375/- (supra), therefore, only such claim of depreciation could be disallowed. On the basis of his aforesaid observations the CIT(A) upheld the addition qua the impugned purchase transactions from the aforementioned 7 parties to the extent of ₹ 5,03,456/-, viz. (i) disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 1,72,256/-; and (ii) disallowance of purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from M/s. Ramdev Trading Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record. We may herein observe that the exception carved out in Para 10(e) of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 (as amended on 20.08.2018) is qua the appeals filed by the revenue where addition is based on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI/ED/DRI/SFIP/Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). For the sake of clarity, we may cull out the exception carved out in Para 10(e) of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 (as amended on 20.8.2018), which reads as under: 10. Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is no tax effect:- (a) t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
