AO, ACIT,CIRCLE-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUBHOJIT GHOSH, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 68/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 December 2018AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was done because the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT, and the appeal was treated as not pressed or withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which had allowed deductions and deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer. The tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect, and if the CIT(A) erred in allowing standard deduction and deleting additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH (A

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM]

Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice President

1.

This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 12, Kolkata dated 20.10.2016 on the following grounds: “

1. In the instant case CIT(A) – 12, Kolkata has erred in law and facts as well as circumstances by directing to allow standard deduction u/s 24(a) of addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- as rent, because the assessee did not disclose this income in his return.

2. Ld. CIT(A) – 12, Kolkata has erred in law and failed to appreciate the AO’s view in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,66,220/- as undisclosed receipt on sale of shares / MF which was not disclosed in any document i.e. return of income.

3. Ld. CIT(A) – 12, Kolkata has erred in law and facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,80,188/- as undisclosed interest income of the assessee’s own funds which was duly confessed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings.

4. Ld. CIT(A) – 12, Kolkata has erred in law and facts as well as circumstances by deleting the addition of Rs. 19,58,080/- as unexplained receipt claimed as drawing from joint investment as the assessee failed to substantiate the drawing from joint venture.

Assessment Year: 2013-14 Subhojit Ghosh

5.

Ld. CIT(A) – 12, Kolkata has erred in law and facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,80,189/- as undisclosed interest income of the assessee as the unexplained receipt claimed as drawing from joint venture.

6.

Ld. CIT(A) – 12, Kolkata has erred in law and facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 2,71,191/- under the head of unexplained receipt from Tata Motors as there was no sale of shares of Tata Motors and or investment in joint venture. 7. Ld. CIT(A) – 12, Kolkata has erred in law and facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 5,30,474/- under receipt from different heads as the assessee has not substantiate the same with supporting documents.”

2.

At the time of hearing fixed in this case today, none appeared on behalf of the respondent assessee. As pointed out by the learned DR, the tax effect involved in this appeal of the assessee however is less than monetary limit of Rs. 20 lacs fixed by the CBDT vide Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 for filing the appeal of the revenue before the Tribunal. As clarified in the said circular, the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lacs for filing the appeal before the Tribunal is applicable even to the pending appeals and such appeals may be treated as not pressed / withdrawn. We accordingly dismissed this appeal of the revenue by treating the same as not pressed / withdrawn.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20th December, 2018.

More judgments on Section 24(a)

All 318 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →