ITO 5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AKANSHA HOMES P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1077/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 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 appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below ₹.50 Lakhs, in accordance with the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the low tax effect, and whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON’BLE & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Turalkar
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande
Hearing: 25.11.2020Pronounced: 25.11.2020

O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA (AM) This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A)-10/ITO 5(1)(1)/31/2013-14 dated 25.11.2015 for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

(A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Akansha Homes Pvt. Ltd., 2. Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal: - “1(a). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the sources of the investment made by the assessee towards purchase of four residential flats are fully substantiated. 1(b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹.1,37,71,100/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68/69C without appreciating that the assessee had failed to establish the genuineness of the loans taken from three parties and also the creditworthiness of the three parties to advance the loan to the assessee company.

2. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored.

3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add any other grounds which may be necessary.”

3.

At the time of hearing, Authorized Representative of the assessee vide letter dated 17.03.2020 submitted that tax effect on the issue in the present appeal is ₹.46,68,403/- which is below ₹.50 Lacs and in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt), the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable.

4.

Departmental Representative also agreed with the above submission of the Authorized Representative of the assessee.

5.

We have heard the submissions and perused the grounds of appeal in this appeal. We find that the tax effect in this appeal is less than

(A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Akansha Homes Pvt. Ltd., ₹.50 Lakhs and therefore the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable on account of low tax effect in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. Hence this appeal is dismissed.

6.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 25.11.2020 as per Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules by placing the pronouncement list in the notice board.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →