ITO-21(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHAMED ANWAR M SHETHWALA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4202/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 August 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT's circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT, as the tax effect in this case was below the new limit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which partly allowed the assessee's appeal against the assessment order. The appeal was filed for the assessment year 2013-14.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the ITAT due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 133(6),Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)
For Respondent: Shri J. Saravanan (CIT DR), Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)
Hearing: 29/08/2019Pronounced: 29/08/2019

O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2013-14, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).

2.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), the revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following effective grounds:-

1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in confirming the addition of 10% of the amount of Sundry Creditors of Rs. 83,33,782/- being the difference between Opening Creditors Closing Creditors and deleting the balance Assessment Year: 2013-14 40% without appreciating the action of the Assessing Officer in this regard.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the Sundry Creditors who could not be verified by the Assessing Officer, even after the issue of notices u/s 133 (6) of the Act (as these notices were either unserved or not replied to or where these parties were not produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer) were correctly disallowed by the Assessing Officer and added back as assessee’s income u/s 41 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the respondent/assessee pointed out that the tax effect of the relief granted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is below Rs. 50 lacs and as per Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the CBDT has revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT from the existing limit of Rs. 20 lacs to Rs. 50 lacs. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the Ld. counsel submitted that this appeal is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →