ASST CIT 18(3), MUMBAI vs. SUMIT J JAIN, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 146/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 December 2019AY 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The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn. This was due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for filing appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,91,00,000 made under Section 68 for bogus unsecured loans. Subsequently, a rectification order reduced this addition to Rs. 1,20,00,000.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT given the reduced tax effect and the applicability of CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, C.A
For Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, D.R
Hearing: 10.12.2019Pronounced: 19.12.2019

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 22.04.2015 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2010-11.

2.

In ground Nos.1 to 3 the Revenue has challenged the addition of Rs.1,91,00,000/- deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO under section 68 of the Act in respect of bogus unsecured loans and in ground No.4 the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.5,89,698/- as made by the AO towards interest expenditure on such bogus loan.

2 Shri Sumit J Jain 3. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee filed a rectification order passed under section1 54 dated 07.04.2015 wherein the addition as challenged by the Revenue in the ground No.1 to 3 of Rs.1,91,00,000/- has been reduced to Rs.1,20,00,000/- on account of apparent mistake and thus the tax effect in this appeal of Revenue is less than Rs.50 lakhs. It is further noticed that the CBDT recently has amended the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 amounting vide Circular No. 17/2019, F.No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) dated 08.08.2019 increasing the limit for filing of appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal i.e. Rs.50 lacs in each of the case. We noted that earlier Circular No. 3 of 2018 was made applicable to pending appeals also and this clause of the circular remains unchanged even after the amendment. Admittedly, in this case tax effect is below prescribed limit for filing of appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue i.e. Rs.50 lacs.

4.

When this was confronted to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, he could not point out that this appeal falls under any of the exception as provided in Circular No. 17 of 2019. Admittedly, the tax effect in this appeal of Revenue is much below the prescribed limit of filing appeal before the Tribunal i.e. Rs.50 lacs as per CBDT circular No. 17 of 2019. In view of the above, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn in view of Circular No. 17 of 2019.

5.

Now, before us, the learned CIT Departmental Representative only requested that he want to verify whether this appeal falls under any of the explanation provided in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Here, we are of giving liberty to Revenue

3 Shri Sumit J Jain that in case, after passing of the order it comes to the notice of the Revenue that this appeal does not falls under any explanation of the CBDT by 3/18, the AO can move for recalling of the order within the prescribed time limit under section 254 of the Act. Hence, this appeal is dismissed as low tax effect covered by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19.12.2019.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →