ITO 22(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. HEERA C. GUJRANI, MUMBAI

Aforesaid appeals by revenue for Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 contest separate orders of learned first appellate order both Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Heera C. Gujrani dated 27/12/2018, Appeal Nos. CIT(A)-34/ITO-22(1)(5)/IT-79 & 80/2016- 17.

The learned counsel for assessee Shri Nitesh Joshi, at the outset, submitted that the tax effect of quantum additions being contested by the revenue under both the appeals is less than the threshold limit of Rs.50 Lacs and therefore, both the appeals are to be dismissed in view of low tax effect Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 [F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-TTJ(Pt.) issued by CBDT. The computations of tax effect for both the years have been placed before the bench through email. 3. The Ld. DR could not controvert the said fact but submitted that the additions were made on account of bogus purchases on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing of the Department. 4. Upon careful consideration of case records, we concur with Ld. AR’s submissions that the tax effect of quantum additions being contested by the Revenue for both the years is, prima-facie, below threshold monetary limit of Rs.50 Lacs and the appeals are not maintainable in terms of recently issued low tax effect Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 [F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-TTJ(Pt.) issued by CBDT. This recent circular further enhances the monetary limit fixed in earlier Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11/07/2018 issued by CBDT as amended on 20/08/2018. In view of the same, both the appeals are not maintainable. No exception could be pointed out. The investigation arm of the Income Tax Department is an internal organ of the department and therefore, the same would not fall under the category of external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies as envisaged by clause 10(e) of the said circular.