ITO-30(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAVI VASUDEO GOENKA, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect. The assessee had submitted that the actual tax effect was below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was concerning additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and a deletion by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars, and whether additions made by the AO were based on assumptions and surmises.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
Assessee by : Shri Anil Lohila & Mr. Khushit Jain Revenue by : Shri R. R. Makwana Date of Hearing 13.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 20.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai-/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 21.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made holding that the AO has made additions on the basis of assumption and surmises ignoring the fact that A.Y. 2014-15 Ravi Vasudeo Goenka the action of the AO was based on documentary evidence clearing indicating receipt of sale consideration by the assessee both in cash and cheque".
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs.23,39, 177/- u/s. 500 ignoring evidence in form of MOU /dated 30.07.1995 and 17.08.1995. 3. "The assessee craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, alter, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal
either before or at the time of hearing."
3. At the outset, Ld. AR pointed out that the appeal of the revenue is liable to be dismissed on account of the low tax effect. He has filed a written submission giving details wherein it has been stated that the revenue has wrongly computed the total tax effect at Rs. 80,87,903/- in Form 36 whereas the actual tax effect comes to only Rs. 37,61,903/- which is below the threshold limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Tax [CBDT] for filing of appeal before the Tribunal vide circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. Ld. DR has not controverted this claim of the assessee after going through the written submission filed by the Ld. AR.
4. In view of the above, the appeal of the revenue is liable to be dismissed on account of the low tax effect.
5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.02.2025.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
