INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. SMT.SHEETAL R SAVLA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4266/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 August 2019AY 2013-143 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. Both parties agreed that the tax effect involved was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order from the CIT(A) which had deleted an addition of ₹35,50,000 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68. The addition was based on a sworn statement regarding unsecured loans from companies alleged to be providing accommodation entries.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The underlying issue was the validity of an addition made under Section 68 based on alleged accommodation entries.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by revenue is directed against the order of ld.

1.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32 [hereinafter referred as the ld. CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 26 March 2018, which in turn arises from the assessment order dated 23rd March 2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner(Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the addition of ₹ 35,50,000/-made by assessing officer under section 68 was on the basis sworn statement of Sh. Praveen Kumar Jain , recorded during the course of search proceedings.

Smt. Sheetal R Salva (AY 2013-14) (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that M/s Duke Business Private limited and Jos Trading Private Limited were companies which were in the business of providing accommodation entries, from whom the assessee had obtained accommodation entries in the nature of unsecured loan.

2.

At the outset of hearing the learned AR of the assessee submits that the tax effect involved in the present appeals is less than the monetary limit of tax effect fixed by Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT) in its Circular No. 3 dated11thJuly 2018, and thus the revenue is precluded from filing and pursuing the present appeal. Accordingly, the learned AR of the assessee prayed that the appeal of the revenue may be dismissed due to lower tax effect.

3.

On the other hand, the learned DR for the revenue after perusal of the grounds of appeal

, fairly conceded that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than the monetary limit fixed by CBDT in its Circular No. 3/2018, dated 11th July 2018.

4. Considering the submission of both the parties the appeal of the revenue is dismissed for the reasons that the revenue is precluded from filing appeal before the Tribunal as due to the tax effect involved in the present apiece is below the monitor limit fixed by CBDT.

However, the revenue is granted liberty to revive the appeal if a later stage it is discovered that the present appeal is covered by any exception clause provided in the Circular of CBDT.

Smt. Sheetal R Salva (AY 2013-14) 5. In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing Sd/- Sd/- SHAMIM YAHYA PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 06.08.2019 SK Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. The concerned CIT(A) 4.The concerned CIT 5. DR “SMC” Bench, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →