DCIT - CC-4(3), MUMBAI vs. NILESH M. AGARWAL, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5054/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 November 2020AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in each appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2010-11, 2012-13, and 2014-15. The appeals concerned disallowances related to unexplained purchase transactions and losses in Bharat Enterprises.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Revenue's appeals were maintainable before the ITAT given the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but related to disallowances and appeals.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh
Hearing: 19.11.2020Pronounced: 26.11.2020

Heard together (3 matters)

I.T.A. No. 5054/Mum/2018
I.T.A. No. 5056/Mum/2018
I.T.A. No. 5058/Mum/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :-

These are appeals by the Revenue directed against respective order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] for concerned assessment year as above.

2.

The grounds of appeals read as under :-

A.Y. 2010-11 :-

1. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance at 20% instead of 30% without giving any basis regarding unexplained purchase transaction.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,05,303/- made by the AO on account of loss in Bharat Enterprises without considering the facts that the assessee had failed to prove the genuinety of purchases and sales. for A.Y. 2012-13 :-

2 Shri Nilesh M. Agarwal

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance at 20% instead of 30% without giving any basis regarding unexplained purchase transaction.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 9,96,329/- made by the AO on account of loss in Bharat Enterprises without considering the facts that the assessee had failed to prove the genuinety of purchases and sales. for A.Y. 2014-15 :-

1. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance at 20% instead of 30% without giving any basis regarding unexplained purchase transaction.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,03,952/- ignoring the facts that the history of the assessee was regularly bringing in books of accounts the unaccounted funds through various ways and evading legitimate taxes.

3.

The relief granted by learned CIT(A) in ground No. 1 in these appeals is as under :- 2010-11 : 10% of 13,30,11,677 = Rs. 1,33,01,167 2012-13 : 10% of 11,06,66,024 = Rs. 1,10,66,602 2014-15 : 10% of 13,30,11,677 = Rs. 1,33,01,167

4.

At the outset it is noted that the tax effect in each appeal is below the limit of Rs. 50 lakhs fixed by the CBDT vide latest circular No. 17/2019 dated 8.8.2019 for filing the appeal before the ITAT. Hence, these appeals by the Revenue are not maintainable.

5.

Per contra, learned Departmental Representative could not dispute that the tax effect is below the said limit. He could not point out that the appeals fall in any of the exceptions carved in said circular.

6.

Upon careful consideration, we find that as the tax effect is below the limit fixed by the CBDT for filing the appeals before the ITAT. Hence, these appeals by the Revenue are liable to be dismissed in limine.

3 Shri Nilesh M. Agarwal

7.

Accordingly, these appeals stand dismissed as such. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules by placing the result on notice board on 26.11.2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →