sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.

Monoplan Securities Pvt. Ltd. C/o. SSKI Securities Pvt. Ltd. 803/804, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 Vs. DCIT Cen Cir-22 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai- 400 020
September, 26th 2014
                         MUMBAI BENCH "I", MUMBAI
                              ITA No. 5174/Mum/2007
                               Assessment Year: 2000-01
            Monoplan Securities Pvt. Ltd.        DCIT Cen Cir-22
            C/o. SSKI Securities Pvt. Ltd.       Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road
            803/804, Tulsiani Chambers,          Mumbai- 400 020
            Nariman Point,
            Mumbai- 400 021
                  (Appellant)                               (Respondent)

                      Permanent Account No. :-AAACS 6162 L

                             Assessee by      :   Shri Hiro Rai
                              Revenue by      :   Shri Kishan Vyas
                        Date of hearing  : 23.09.2014
                   Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2014


      This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the
Ld.CIT(A)-4, Mumbai dated 29.06.2007 for the Assessment Year 2000-01.

2.    In this appeal, the assessee has agitated the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in
confirming the action of the AO disallowing the business loss and the bad debts
written off claimed by the assessee. Also, the assessee vide an application dated
30.09.2013, has filed the additional ground of appeal which relate to the validity of
the assessment made u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act. After going through the
additional ground filed by the assessee, it is noted that the same is a legal ground
which does not require any new facts to be brought on record. In view of the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company
Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383, the legal ground raised by the assessee is
3. Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, it is a matter of fact that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act has been carried out in the SSKI group on 02.08.2003 and the assessee has also been covered under search, ITA No. 5174/Mum/2007 2 Monoplan Securities Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2000-01 which has been concluded on 03.08.2003. It is observed that in respect of the original return of income filed by the assessee on 30.11.2000 for the Assessment Year under consideration, the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act has been issued, however, no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been served by the AO. It is pertinent to mention that the assessment for the said assessment year has attained finality before the date of search hence the assessment in the case does not abate. It is pertinent to mention that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. Vs. DCIT 137 ITD 287 (Mum)(SB) has held that the crucial facts to be recorded in such cases is that whether assessment or re-assessment has been pending at the time of search carried out or in the course of assessment proceedings initiated u/s 153A. Applying the said test to the case in hand, the assessment for the year under consideration has attained finality and therefore the AO does not have any jurisdiction to review the assessments which have attained finality. Further, the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) Vs. ACIT 88 DTR (Raj) has held that in case nothing incriminating is found on account of search or requisition, the question of reassessment of the concluded assessment does not arise. It has further been held that the underlying purpose of making assessment of total income u/s 153A is to assess income which is not disclosed or would not have been disclosed. Second proviso to section 153A providing for abatement of assessment or reassessment, which is applicable only in proceedings pending on the date of search or requisition for the reason that there cannot be two assessments for a single assessment year. The same view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Murali Agro Products vide its order dated 29.10.2010 in IT appeal No 36 of 2009. It is also a settled position of law that reassessment is permitted in an assessment u/s 153A, only if incriminating material is found during the course of search. In the case in hand, the question is whether any incriminating material has been found in the course of search relating to the additions made. The Revenue could not show any incriminating material found in the course of search which would warrant the impugned additions. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no justification for the authorities below to consider the issues in the assessment passed u/s 153A. In view of that matter, both the additions made in the impugned assessment order are not justified. ITA No. 5174/Mum/2007 3 Monoplan Securities Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2000-01 Consequently, the orders of the authorities below making/confirming the disallowances made in respect of the assessment year under consideration stands quashed. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 23rd day of September, 2014. Sd/- Sd/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (Dr. S.T.M. PAVALAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 23.09.2014. *Srivastava Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The CIT(A) Concerned, Mumbai The DR "I" Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Contact Us

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions