2020 (3) TMI 126 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - HELD THAT - When the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that there was no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the first appellate authority which the Tribunal affirmed, by necessary implication it would mean that the appeal filed by the Revenue had become redundant inasmuch as it had challenged the same order of the first appellate authority which the Tribunal has affirmed. Therefore, not on the ground mentioned by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 2019 (7) TMI 1581 - ITAT MUMBAI but on the above ground, we feel that filing of the Misc. Application by the Revenue was wholly unwarranted. Appeal filed by the Revenue stated to be pending before the Tribunal would be covered by the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the appeal of the assessee unless reversed in subsequent proceedings by the High Court.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of income tax based on bogus purchases, appeal by assessee before first appellate authority, modification of assessment order, appeal before Tribunal by both assessee and Revenue, dismissal of assessee's appeal, filing of Misc. Application by Revenue for recall of order, dismissal of Misc. Application by Tribunal, challenge through writ petition.

Analysis:
The High Court judgment pertains to a case involving the assessment of income tax based on bogus purchases made by the assessee. The assessee had questioned the addition of the amount covered by the bogus purchases to their total income. The first appellate authority modified the assessment order, directing that only the profit derived from the tainted transactions should be assessed to tax, setting it at 12.5%. Subsequently, both the assessee and the Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal, with the Revenue challenging the limitation of the addition to only the profit quotient. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that only the profit attributable to the sale consideration should be taxed, not the entire sale consideration. The Tribunal found no illegality or infirmity in the first appellate authority's order.

The Revenue filed a Misc. Application for the recall of the Tribunal's order, seeking to have both appeals heard together. The Tribunal dismissed this application, deeming it beyond the scope of the relevant Act. The High Court, upon review, concluded that since the Tribunal had already affirmed the first appellate authority's order in the assessee's appeal, the Revenue's appeal had become redundant. The High Court found the filing of the Misc. Application by the Revenue unwarranted on this basis. It held that the decision in the assessee's appeal would cover the pending Revenue appeal unless overturned in subsequent proceedings by the High Court. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in it.

In summary, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the Revenue's appeal had become redundant after the Tribunal affirmed the first appellate authority's order in the assessee's appeal. The Court found the filing of the Misc. Application by the Revenue unnecessary and dismissed the writ petition accordingly.