ITO-4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KEN FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., 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 information received from DGIT (investigation) does not qualify as an 'external source' for the purpose of exceptions to the low tax effect circular. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
What were the facts?
The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 7 Lacs by the CIT(A). The tax effect of the additions was below Rs. 50 Lacs, making the appeal potentially not maintainable as per CBDT circular.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal is maintainable due to low tax effect, and if information from DGIT (investigation) constitutes an external source for exceptions to the circular.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एक-सद� मामला ” �ायपीठ मुंबई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय �ी िवकास अव�थी, �याियक सद�य एवं माननीय �ी मनोज कुमार अ�वाल ,लेखा सद� के सम�। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITO-4(3)(2) M/s. Ken Financial Services Limited Room No.648, 6th Floor बनाम/ 302, Standard House Aaykar Bhawan, New Marine Lines 83, M.K. Road, Marine Lines Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 002 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACK-4929-K (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Sanjay Sethi-Ld.DR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/06/2021 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 08/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member): -
The revenue challenges the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai, [CIT(A)] dated 24/10/2019 which has deleted the additions of Rs.7 Lacs as made by Ld. AO while framing an assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 28/12/2016.
Though none appeared for assessee, however, it transpires that the tax effect of quantum additions under dispute by revenue is below Rs.50 Lacs and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable in terms of CBDT low tax effect Circular No.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 [F.No.279/Misc.142/2007- TTJ(Pt.) Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue].
The Ld. DR stressed that the reassessment proceedings were triggered pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (investigation) and therefore, the matter would fall under exception 10(e) of the Circular. However, we are of the considered opinion that the Directorate of Income Tax (investigation) is a law enforcement agency under the control of Ministry of Finance and would thus constitute internal agency / wing of Income Tax Department which works under the aegis of its controlling authority CBDT and therefore, it could not be considered as ‘external source’ as is referred to in para 10(e) of CBDT circular dated 20/08/2018. When CBDT is referring to external sources, it is certainly referring to sources which are not internal sources within the Income Tax Department and various wings functioning within its aegis. It could also be seen that the subsequent CBDT Circular No. 23 of 2019 dated 06/09/2019 read with office memorandum dated 16/09/2019 applies only to cases involving bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) / Short Term Capital Loss (STCL) on penny stocks. The same is not the case here. 4. In view of the foregoing, the revenue’s appeal is not maintainable on account of low tax effect. At the same time, a liberty is given to revenue to seek recall of the appeal, if at a later stage, it is found that the matter is covered by any exceptions provided in any of the circular or in case the tax effect as agitated by revenue exceeds the prescribed monetary limit. 5. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 08th June, 2021.
Sd/- Sd/- (Vikas Awasthy) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 08/06/2021 Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026