INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PALGHAR, PALGHAR vs. NALIN DAHYABHAI SHAH, PALGHAR
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHANITO Ward-1, Palghar Aayakar Bhavan, Bidco Road, Palghar, Maharashtra-401 404
PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant /revenue against the order dated 21.03.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Nalin Dahyabhai Shah Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the A.Y. 2013-14 wherein the addition of Rs. 1,66,73,639/- and Rs. 7,83,457 made by AO on 22.03.2022 u/s 69A of the Act to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act was deleted and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the department is in appeal before us and has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not exercising his co-terminus powers u/s.250(4) to verify the fact that the that the case was selected for scrutiny to verify the total deposits of Rs.5,65,34,517/-in the bank account for the year under consideration, which was not at all examined.
On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not exercising his co-terminus powers u/s.250(4) by calling for a specific remand report on the issue of the total deposits of Rs.5,65,34,517/- in the bank account for the year under consideration which was not at all examined.
On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to note that transactions in intra-day share trading is not related to the deposits made in the bank.
On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), being the first fact finding authority, erred in failing to use the co-terminus powers as that of the AO to ascertain the corrects facts of the case and bring it to a logical conclusion. Nalin Dahyabhai Shah 5. The order of the CIT(A) may be vacated & and the matter may be restored to the table of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any ground of appeal.” 3. During the arguments, Ld. AR very fairly submitted that the department appeal has become infructuous by virtue of circular no. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, wherein the monetary limit for tax effect for filing appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has been raised upto Rs. 60 lacs. It is submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is below 60 lacs and as such the appeal has become infructuous and same may be disposed off accordingly. 4. We have also heard the Ld. DR on behalf of the revenue, who has supported the submissions of the Ld. AR and stated that the appeal is not maintainable and has become infructuous. 5. We have considered the submissions and examined the record. In view of the enhancement of the monetary limit for filing the departmental appeal wherein the tax effect for filing the appeal should be Rs. 60 Lacs or above and the tax effect in this appeal are below i.e Rs. 53,98,330/- as per Form 36. In view of these facts and the submissions made by the Ld. Nalin Dahyabhai Shah AR, the appeal filed by the department is accordingly dismissed having become infructuous. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the department is accordingly dismissed having become infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2025. (OM PRAKASH KANT) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai / Dated 28.11.2025 Dhananjay, Sr. PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.
////
BY ORDER
(Asstt.