ITO 10(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. LOTUS ENERGY INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3509/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 September 2018AY 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 accepted the assessee's contention that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2010-11. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1.

This appeal by Revenue under Section 253 of Income-tax Act is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-17, Mumbai dated 09.03.2015 for Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in that the assessee has discharged its burden of proof as to the genuineness of the transaction and offered a valid explanation without appreciating the fact that same transaction has been accounted as subscription to share capital by the assessee and as unsecured loan by the other party"

2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in that the assessee has proved creditworthiness of the 3509 Mum 2015-M/s Lotus Energy India Pvt. Ltd.

subscriber without appreciating the facts established by the AO clearly prove that subscriber creditworthiness is clearly in doubt and assessee could not explain the same to the satisfaction of the assessing Officer as envisaged under section 68 of the income tax Act,1961."

3.

Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act by holding that AO has not done adequate inquiries, ignoring the facts that CIT(A)has the obligation to conduct proper enquiry on facts or remand the matter to the AO as held by Honble Dehi High Court in the case of CIT vs Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.525 of 2011) delivered on 11.03.2015?"

2.

At the outset of hearing, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is only Rs. 18,54,000/-, which is less than the monetary limit fixed by CBDT in its Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July 2018 and therefore, appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable. The ld. AR of the assessee also furnished the working of tax effect in the following manner:

Addition on account of share Application money 6,000,000 Tax @ 30% 1,800,000 Add: Surcharge 0 Add: Education and Higher Education Cess 54000 1,854,000 3. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue after going through the grounds of appeal and the working of tax effect accepted the contention of ld. AR of the assessee that 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.

3509 Mum 2015-M/s Lotus Energy India Pvt. Ltd.

4.

Considering the contention of both the parties that tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable.

5.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18/09/2018.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →