ITO-30(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAVI VASUDEO GOENKA, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITO-30(1)(1), Mumbai
254B, Kautilya Bhavan,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai-400051
v/s.
बनाम
Ravi Vasudeo Goenka
Basement Chandermukhi,
Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400021
स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACPG266C
Appellant/अपीलार्थी
..
Respondent/प्रतिवादी
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. 2. 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 P a g e | 2
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."
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. RAHUL CHAUDHARY RENU JAUHRI (न्यातयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai
P a g e | 3
A.Y. 2014-15
Ravi Vasudeo Goenka
दिनाुंक /Date 20.02.2025
अननकेत स ुंह राजपूत/ स्टेनो
आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT
4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT,
Mumbai
5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.
सत्यावपि प्रवि ////
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.