Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU
ORDER The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)-8, Mumbai dated 31/01/2017, which in turn, arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 11/02/2016.
In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following Ground of appeal:-
1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs.33,00,000 made u/s.68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 on account of receipt of share application money without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the investment made by the share applicants, 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs.31,50,000/- made u/s.68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 on account of receipt of share application money without appreciating the fact that specific information was received from DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai that the alleged parties belonging to Praveen Kumar Jain group had confessed to providing accommodation entries without conducting any business activity and that the assessee was one of the beneficiary of such accommodation entries.
At the time of hearing, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.10.00 lacs as prescribed in the CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10/12/2015, which has revised the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before the Tribunal retrospectively. The Ld. Departmental Representative has not disputed the aforesaid fact-situation.
Notably, in the instant case, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance under section 68 of the Act of Rs.33,00,000/- and the CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The tax effect on this disputed income comes to Rs.9,90,000/- excluding the surcharge and education cess. Our Co-ordinate Bench in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Dome Bell Electronics India Ltd., in dated 22/07/2016 has held that for the purposes of considering the amount of tax effect as envisaged in CBDT Circular dated 10/12/2015 (supra), what has to be considered is the amount of tax excluding the amount of surcharge and education cess. Therefore, in this view of the matter, the tax effect in dispute in the captioned appeal is stated to be below the monetary limit of Rs.10.00 lacs specified in the CBDT Circular dated 10/12/2015 (supra), the same is dismissed as not maintainable.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2017