DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(3), MUMBAI vs M/S SAMRIDHI DEALERS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, AR

For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR, Mr. Vijay Mehta, AR

Hearing: 21/02/2023Pronounced: 23/02/2023

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai (in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds:

1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of on-money to the extent

M/s Samridhi Dealers Pvt. Ltd. 2 AY 2012-13 of Rs.9,93,282/ of Rs.9,93,282/- as against the addition of as against the addition of Rs.75,00,000/ Rs.75,00,000/- made made by by the the A.O. A.O. as as unaccounted investment of the assessee within unaccounted investment of the assessee within unaccounted investment of the assessee within the meaning of Section 69 of the Income the meaning of Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, tax Act, 1961.?. 2. 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT(A) has erred in case and in law, the id. CIT(A) has erred in case and in law, the id. CIT(A) has erred in estimating the addition only to the extent of estimating the addition only to the extent of estimating the addition only to the extent of Rs.4,000/ Rs.4,000/- per sq. ft. being the differential rate per sq. ft. being the differential rate per square feet in the form of on per square feet in the form of on-money paid by money paid by the assessee to Nish Developers Private Limited, assessee to Nish Developers Private Limited, assessee to Nish Developers Private Limited, taking the basis of some other flats booked by taking the basis of some other flats booked by taking the basis of some other flats booked by some other parties during the same period, some other parties during the same period, some other parties during the same period, disregarding the fact that corroborative evidences disregarding the fact that corroborative evidences disregarding the fact that corroborative evidences of on-money paid by the assessee of Rs. money paid by the assessee of Rs. money paid by the assessee of Rs. 75,00,000/ 75,00,000/- Crore for the year under under consideration, in the form of data from pendrive consideration, in the form of data from pendrive consideration, in the form of data from pendrive found and seized from Shri Pravin Mishra, a key found and seized from Shri Pravin Mishra, a key found and seized from Shri Pravin Mishra, a key employee of M/s Nish Dealers Pvt. Ltd., found employee of M/s Nish Dealers Pvt. Ltd., found employee of M/s Nish Dealers Pvt. Ltd., found during the course of search?. during the course of search?. 3. 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not IT(A) has erred in not accepting the statement of Shri Gulabchand Jain accepting the statement of Shri Gulabchand Jain accepting the statement of Shri Gulabchand Jain as evidence even though no evidence has been as evidence even though no evidence has been as evidence even though no evidence has been brought on record or co brought on record or co-ercion particularly when ercion particularly when the admittance of payment of Rs.1,14,00,000/ the admittance of payment of Rs.1,14,00,000/ the admittance of payment of Rs.1,14,00,000/- for the flat by Shri Gulabchand Corroborated for the flat by Shri Gulabchand Corroborated the the evidence found during the course of search in the evidence found during the course of search in the evidence found during the course of search in the case of M/s Nish Developers (P) Ltd.?" case of M/s Nish Developers (P) Ltd.?" 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) took cognizance of case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) took cognizance of case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) took cognizance of and and and relied relied relied upon upon upon the the the statement statement statement of of of Shri Shri Shri Gulabchand of having paid o Gulabchand of having paid on money to partly n money to partly confirm the addition made by the AO and thereby confirm the addition made by the AO and thereby confirm the addition made by the AO and thereby dis-regarding specific evidence directly related to regarding specific evidence directly related to regarding specific evidence directly related to the case in favour of general evidence?" the case in favour of general evidence?"

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that in the case, the Assessing Offic the Assessing Officer has made addition for the amount er has made addition for the amount of Rs.75,00,000/- which has been further partly deleted by the Ld. which has been further partly deleted by the Ld. which has been further partly deleted by the Ld.

M/s Samridhi Dealers Pvt. Ltd. 3 AY 2012-13 CIT(A). According to him, the tax effect involved in the appeal of the CIT(A). According to him, the tax effect involved in the appeal of the CIT(A). According to him, the tax effect involved in the appeal of the Revenue is below the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Revenue is below the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Revenue is below the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxe Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi (CBDT) for filing appeal to the s, New Delhi (CBDT) for filing appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal tax Appellate Tribunal vide CBDT Circular no. 3/2018 dt. CBDT Circular no. 3/2018 dt. 11/07/2018, which has been further enhanced by way of CBDT , which has been further enhanced by way of CBDT , which has been further enhanced by way of CBDT Circualr No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019. Circualr No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019.

The Ld. Departmental Representative also could The Ld. Departmental Representative also could The Ld. Departmental Representative also could not controvert but however he submitted that he wants to seek instruction from but however he submitted that he wants to seek instruction from but however he submitted that he wants to seek instruction from tax for withdrawal of the the respective Pr. Commissioner of Income Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax for withdrawal of the appeal.

We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue-in- dispute. Undisputedly, the addition dispute. Undisputedly, the addition in the case has only being made in the case has only being made at Rs.75,00,000/- which has also been which has also been further partly deleted further partly deleted. In the grounds raised

also it is mentioned that the Ld. CIT(A) has also it is mentioned that the Ld. CIT(A) has also it is mentioned that the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of Rs.9,93,282/- as against the restricted the addition to the extent of Rs.9,93,282/ restricted the addition to the extent of Rs.9,93,282/ addition of Rs.75,00,000 addition of Rs.75,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is evident that the tax effect involved in the appeal is Therefore, it is evident that the tax effect involved in the appeal is Therefore, it is evident that the tax effect involved in the appeal is below the monetary limit of Rs.50,00,000/ below the monetary limit of Rs.50,00,000/- prescribed for filing prescribed for filing further appeal to the ITAT vide further appeal to the ITAT vide CBDT Circular no.

17. CBDT Circular no. 17/2019 dt. 08/08/2019 and therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with liberty to file application for recalling in case subsequently it is with liberty to file application for recalling in case subsequently it is with liberty to file application for recalling in case subsequently it is found that the case falls under any of the exceptions provided to the found that the case falls under any of the exceptions provided to the found that the case falls under any of the exceptions provided to the said Circular (supra). .

M/s Samridhi Dealers Pvt. Ltd. 4 AY 2012-13

In the result, the appeal of t In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. he Revenue is dismissed.

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S SAMRIDHI DEALERS PVT LTD., MUMBAI