What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was because the tax effect of the relief granted by the CIT(A) was below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circular.

ITO vs S.V.C. Resources Ltd | ITAT Mumbai 2018

Q: What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 43,56,939/- made on account of undisclosed investment in share trading. The addition was deleted by the CIT(A).

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM

For Appellant: Shri V. Justin

Hearing: 03.08.2018Pronounced: 14.08.2018

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai dated 20.02.2014 and pertains to the assessment year 2005-06.

The grounds of appeal reads as under:

i. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.43,56,939/- made on account of undisclosed investment in share trading transaction made by the assessee-company through M/s Alliance Intermediaries & Network Pvt Ltd., a Group Company of Shri Mukesh Chokshi." ii. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the above addition holding that the statement of Shri Mukesh Chokshi recorded on oath cannot be relied upon for deciding the genuineness of the purchase and sale of shares." ;

M/s. S.V. C Resources Ltd. iii. “On the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim of income shown to have received from share trading activity by failing to produce the books of accounts and other relevant supporting documents by merely stating that the same were lost during'the floods in July 2006." iv. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the addition as the same were based on documentary evidences seized during the course of search in the premises of Shri Mukesh Chokshi who has also confirmed that he had provided accomodation entries." v. " The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored."

3. The Revenue is in appeal against the deletion of addition by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

At the outset, it transpires that the tax effect of the relief granted by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is below Rs.20 lacs, as per the limit fixed by the CBDT for filing the appeal before the ITAT vide CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, F. No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt) dated 11th July, 2018 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

We have gone through the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the grounds of appeal. It has been found that the tax effect in the appeal is less than Rs. 20 lacs.

The ld. Departmental Representative fairly agreed to the above proposition that this appeal is not maintainable in light of the above said CBDT Circular. He also did not point that this appeal fall in the exceptions carved out in the above said circular.

Accordingly, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13.08.2018

ITO 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. S.V.C. RESOURCES LTD, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments