ITO 17(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. EUROPEAN TRUST, MUMBAI
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, alleging that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The assessee filed a cross-objection challenging the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act and asserting that no additional evidence was filed, contrary to the Revenue's claims.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect (Rs. 58 lakh) was below the monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh for appeals to the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular no.9 of 2024. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection became infructuous and was also dismissed, with a provision for restoration if the Revenue's appeal is later recalled.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A. 2. Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law. 3. Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Rule 46A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, CBDT Circular no.9 of 2024
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYASHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.
The present appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee has been filed against the impugned order dated 27/03/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2012-13.
In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: -
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in admitting the additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings in contravention of the provisions of Rule 46A(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962?" "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deciding the appeal of the assessee based on the additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings, without giving an opportunity to the AO as per the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962?" 3. "Appellant prays the Hon'ble ITAT to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and to restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining the new facts emerged and the additional evidences submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings."
While in its Cross objection, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “CROSS OBJECTION NO. 1. REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the reopening of assessment w/s 147 of the Act. 2. The cross objector prays that the reopening of assessment held ab-initio void or otherwise bad in law.
CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2: NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED. UNDER RULE 46A 3. The revenue, in its grounds of appeal, has alleged that the additional evidence was submitted and admitted during the course of appellate proceedings before Hon'ble CIT(A) in contravention of Rule 46A(2) and 46A(3), which are contrary to the facts on record hence the grounds of the Revenue may be dismissed
3 ITA No.2525/Mum/2024 & CO No.116/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13)
Without prejudice to above, the Cross Objector state that no additional evidence has been submitted before the Hon'ble CIT(A). Only clarifications have been submitted with respect to assessment records at the specific direction of Hon'ble CIT(A) and thus, the ground of the revenue may be dismissed.”
At the outset, we find that in column 10 of Form No. 36 filed by the Revenue, the tax effect relating to the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue is mentioned as Rs.58,00,000, which is below the monetary limit of Rs.60 lakh, applicable to appeals before the Tribunal, as per CBDT Circular no.9 of 2024, dated 17/09/2024. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, Revenue’s appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, the Revenue is granted the liberty to seek recall of this order if, at a later point in time, it is found that the appeal falls under any of the exceptions provided in the Circular referred to above.
Since we have dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, therefore, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and therefore is dismissed. However, if subsequently the Revenue’s appeal is recalled on the basis that the Revenue’s appeal falls under any of the exceptions provided in the Circular referred to above, in such a case we direct that the assessee’s Cross Objection be also restored in the interest of justice.
In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/11/2024
Sd/- Sd/- NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 29/11/2024 Prabhat
4 ITA No.2525/Mum/2024 & CO No.116/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2012-13)
Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai
