ITO-28(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MUKESH BALDEVRAJ BAJAJ, NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3844/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 October 2024AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the tax effect in the present appeal was Rs.53,42,414/-, which is below the threshold limit of Rs.60 lakhs prescribed for filing appeals before the ITAT by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek recall if it falls under specific exceptions.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre for Assessment Year 2007-08. The appeal contested the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's appeal, particularly regarding the applicability of Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act and the genuineness of advances received towards booking.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT when the tax effect is below the monetary threshold prescribed by the CBDT Circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2007-08, raising following grounds:

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC (Ld.CIT(A)) is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by not following the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT contained assessee by not following the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT contained assessee by not following the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT contained in its order dated 02.03.2012. in its order dated 02.03.2012.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC (Ld.CIT(A)) erred in allowing appeal of assessee law, the Ld. NFAC (Ld.CIT(A)) erred in allowing appeal of assessee law, the Ld. NFAC (Ld.CIT(A)) erred in allowing appeal of assessee holding that provision of section 41(1) are not applicable ignoring the holding that provision of section 41(1) are not applicable ignoring the holding that provision of section 41(1) are not applicable ignoring the fact that the Hon'ble ITAT and the CIT(A) had already held/adm fact that the Hon'ble ITAT and the CIT(A) had already held/adm fact that the Hon'ble ITAT and the CIT(A) had already held/admitted that provisions of section 41(1) are not applicable to the facts of the case that provisions of section 41(1) are not applicable to the facts of the case that provisions of section 41(1) are not applicable to the facts of the case and the Ld.CIT(A) failed to decide the • issue on the line whether and the Ld.CIT(A) failed to decide the • issue on the line whether and the Ld.CIT(A) failed to decide the • issue on the line whether advance received towards booking by the various persons in the earlier advance received towards booking by the various persons in the earlier advance received towards booking by the various persons in the earlier year and as reflected in balance sh year and as reflected in balance sheet are genuine or not.

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of assessee by law, the Ld. NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of assessee by law, the Ld. NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of assessee by not following the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT by not bringing on record not following the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT by not bringing on record not following the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT by not bringing on record balance sheet of earl balance sheet of earlier years of proprietary concern duly supported by ier years of proprietary concern duly supported by documentary evidences of the amount received and part payment documentary evidences of the amount received and part payment documentary evidences of the amount received and part payment towards discharging of liabilities claimed by the assessee. towards discharging of liabilities claimed by the assessee.

4. The Appellant submits that the impugned order dated 30.08.2023 4. The Appellant submits that the impugned order dated 30.08.2023 4. The Appellant submits that the impugned order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the Ld. passed by the Ld. NFAC, is bad-in-law and it is deserved to be quashed law and it is deserved to be quashed and the addition made by the assessing officer is liable to be upheld. and the addition made by the assessing officer is liable to be upheld. and the addition made by the assessing officer is liable to be upheld.

2.

At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than submitted that tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than submitted that tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than which has been prescribed for the threshold amount of Rs.60 lakhs amount of Rs.60 lakhs, which has been prescribed for filing appeal before the ITAT vide CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated filing appeal before the ITAT vide CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated filing appeal before the ITAT vide CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which applies to the pending appeals also and which applies to the pending appeals also and which applies to the pending appeals also and therefore, he submitted that appeal of the Department might be he submitted that appeal of the Department might be he submitted that appeal of the Department might be treated as withdrawn. withdrawn.

3.

We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The tax effect involved in the present relevant material on record. The tax effect involved in the present relevant material on record. The tax effect involved in the present appeal is Rs.53,42,414/ appeal is Rs.53,42,414/-, which is below the threshold limit of which is below the threshold limit of Rs.60 lakhs prescribed for filing appea Rs.60 lakhs prescribed for filing appeal as per CBDT Circular No l as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, a 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue ccordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn. However, in case the appeals falls under is dismissed as withdrawn. However, in case the appeals falls under is dismissed as withdrawn. However, in case the appeals falls under any of the exceptions provided any of the exceptions provided in para 3 of the said Circular para 3 of the said Circular (supra), the Revenue is a , the Revenue is at liberty for seeking recall of the appeal by seeking recall of the appeal by way of a Miscellaneous Application. Miscellaneous Application.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on nounced in the open Court on 14/10/2024. /10/2024.

More judgments on Section 41(1)

All 1,943 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →