INCOME TAX OFFICER 21(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHD.FARUK HAJI EBRAHIM MEMON, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5877/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 September 2019AY 2012-133 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 was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Both the assessee and the Revenue agreed with this submission.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13. The Revenue's grounds challenged the CIT(A)'s ruling that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not applicable and that the assessee had failed to prove the relationship of persons who paid amounts on their behalf.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. A secondary issue involved the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) regarding property received without consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON’BLE & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON’BLEShri Mohd. Faruk Haji Ebrahim Memon

For Appellant: Shri Shubam Rathi
For Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak
Hearing: 26.09.2019Pronounced: 26.09.2019

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A)-33/Rg.21/133/2015-16 dated 21.04.2015 for the A.Y. 2012-13.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal: - 1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred that assessee is a person and received a share in immovable property without consideration during the previous year. However, the CIT(A) conveniently ruled that the case of assessee was not covered under section 56(2)(vii)(b).

2. "On the facts and circumstances to the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) ignoring the fact that during the course of assessment

(A.Y: 2012-13) Shri Mohd. Faruk Haji Ebrahim Memon proceedings the assessee failed to prove that the persons paid amount on behalf of the assessee are relative of the assessee."

3. "The appellant prays that the order of Ld.CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored."

3.

At the time of hearing, Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that tax effect on the issue in the present appeal 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.

Ld. Departmental Representative also agreed with the above submission of the Authorized Representative of the assessee and filled letter dated 25.09.2019 written by ITO – 21(2)(3) to the Addl. CIT, Sr. AR, ITAT clarifying that the tax effect is Rs. 38,63,800/- and the issue does not fall under the exceptions as per Boards Circular.

5.

We have heard the submissions and perused the grounds of appeal in this appeal. In view of the above submissions of the Revenue, appeal is not maintainable on account of low tax effect. In view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, this appeal is dismissed.

6.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

All 626 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →