ITO, 26(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MOHAMMED AKRAM ISRIAL KASIM KHAN, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3277/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 September 2020AY 2009-104 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeals without going into the merits of the case. This decision was based on the low tax effect, which did not meet the minimum threshold for appeals to the Tribunal as per CBDT guidelines.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which granted partial relief to the assessee by restricting additions related to bogus purchase bills to 12.5%. The tax effect in these appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue should be dismissed due to low tax effect, irrespective of the merits of the case, based on CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Respondent: Ms Kavita P. Kaushik

आदेश/ ORDER

1.

These three appeals by the Revenue are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 8, Mumbai [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2009-10, respectively. All the three impugned orders are of even date i.e. 30/11/2018.

2.

The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in steel. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills from the Hawala dealers in the impugned assessment years and made addition of 25% of the bogus purchases:- Assessment Year Addition made by A.O (in. Rs.) 2009-10 33,46,649/- 2010-11 23,04,751/- 2011-12 5,61,729/- Aggrieved by the additions, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) granted part relief to the assessee by restricting the addition to 12.5% of the aggregate alleged bogus purchases. Thus, the CIT(A) deleted 50% of the addition made by Assessing Officer.

Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, representing the Department fairly admitted the 3. tax effect involved in these appeals is less than the monetary limit prescribed by the recent CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08-08- 2019 for filing of appeals before the Tribunal by the Department.

4.

The tax effect in the present appeals (as declared in Form 36) by the Department before the Tribunal is: Assessment Year Tax Effect 2009-10 Rs.5,17,057/- 2010-11 Rs. 3,56,084/- 2011-12 Rs.86,786/- Undisputedly, the tax effect is less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing of appeals before the Tribunal. The CBDT vide circular dated 08-08-2019 (supra) has amended Para 3 of Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11-07-2018 thereby enhancing monetary limit of tax effect from Rs.20 Lakhs to Rs.50 Lakhs for filing of appeals by the Department before the Tribunal. Thus, without going into merits of the issue raised in the appeals, the present appeals by the Revenue are dismissed on account of low tax effect.

5.

Before parting, we clarify here that the Revenue shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of appeal(s), with the requisite material to show that the appeal(s) is/are protected by the exceptions prescribed in Para 10 of the Circular dated 11-07-2018 and its amendment dated 20/08/2018.

6.

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court at the conclusion of hearing on Tuesday the 15th day of September, 2020.

Sd./- (VIKAS AWASTHY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई/ Mumbai, �दनांक/Dated: 15/09/2020 Vm, Sr. PS(O/S)

��त�ल�प अ�े�षतCopy of the Order forwarded to :

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →