DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI vs. S.C. BROTHERS, MUMBAI

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against order dated 25/02/2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009-10, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The revenue has challenged the impugned order on the following effective ground:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing Rs. 8,40,249/-u/s 57(iii) of the Act when the assessee had neither during the assessment proceedings nor during the appellate proceedings given any 2 Assessment Year: 2009-10 evidence to prove that the interest expenditure on Bank FDR loan of Rs. 8,40,249/- was exclusively used for earning interest income.”

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in this case is below Rs.10,00,000/- as the total addition made by the AO under the head income from other sources’ is Rs. 29,32,494/-. Hence, as per the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015, the present appeal is not maintainable.

The Ld. DR fairly admitted that the tax effect in department’s appeal is below Rs.10 Lakhs, We find that the issue raised in appeal does not fall under any of the exceptions specified in para 8 of the Circular. Since, it has been specifically clarified in the Circular aforesaid that the instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals; the present appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable. We, therefore, dismiss the same in limine.