ITO WD 1(3), MUMBAI vs. RUCHI MENTHOL P.LTD, DOMBIVALI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4487/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 February 2017AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that appeals filed by the Revenue with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The assessee's counsel pointed out that the tax effect of the relief granted by the CIT(A) was below Rs. 10 lakhs for both assessment years.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Revenue's appeals were maintainable given the low tax effect of the relief granted by the CIT(A), as per CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned, but related to appeals and tax effect thresholds for filing appeals.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO

For Appellant: Ms. Beena Santosh, DR
For Respondent: Shri Ketan C Vajani
Hearing: 08.02.2017Pronounced: 08.02.2017

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 08.02.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are two appeals under consideration. Both these appeals are filed by the Revenue against the common order of the CIT (A) for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. Since, the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed of in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the following paras of this order.

2.

In both these appeals, Revenue raised the identical grounds. Therefore, for the sake of reference and adjudication purpose, grounds raised

by the Revenue in its appeal for the AY 2010-2011 are extracted as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld CIT (A) has erred in relying on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Kanchwala Gems vs. JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC) and Hon’ble High Court’s decision in the case of Vijay Protein, Sanjay Oil Cake Industries etc.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT (A) erred in not following the order of the ITAT, Pune in dated 20.02.2015 in the case of M/s. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd wherein 100% addition of bogus purchases was confirmed.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in giving relief to the assessee to the extent of suppressed GP out of total bogus purchases even though (i) The assessee could not produce primary evidences lime Octroi Receipts, Delivery Challan etc evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases before the AO and before the CIT (A). (ii) The affidavits filed by the entry providers before Sales Tax Authorities cannot be ignored having evidentiary value.

4.

The order of the CIT (A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.”

3.

At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee briefly narrated the facts of the case, which are identical for the both the AYs under consideration, and filed a working showing the calculation of tax effect on the relief allowed by the CIT (A) for both the AYs. The details of the said working of tax effect are extracted as under:-

“Assessment year 2010-11 (ITA No. 4488/M/2016): (i) Total income computed by the AO Rs. 21,04,700/- (ii) Relief allowed by CIT (A) Rs. 15,48,978/- (iii) Taxable income after giving effect to CIT (A) Rs. 5,55,722/- Tax relief allowed by CIT (A) @ 30% Rs. 4,64,693/- Add: Education cess @ 3% Rs. 13,941/- Rs. 4,78,634/

Assessment year 2011-12 (ITA No. 4488/M/2016): (i) Total income computed by the AO Rs. 32,38,176/- (ii) Relief allowed by CIT (A) Rs. 28,33,454/- (iii) Taxable income after giving effect to CIT (A) Rs. 4,04,722/- Tax relief allowed by CIT (A) @ 30% Rs. 8,50,036/- Add: Education cess @ 3% Rs. 25,501/- Rs. 8,75,537/-“ 4. From the above, Ld Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that the tax effect in both these cases is below Rs. 10 lakhs. Therefore, these cases are covered by the CBDT Circular No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 which is relevant for the proposition that the appeals filed by the Revenue with a tax effect of Rs. 10 lakhs and below are to be either dismissed by the Tribunal as not maintainable or not pressed by the Revenue.

5.

After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion, considering the low tax effect involved in the present cases ie below Rs. 10 lakhs, the instant appeals filed by the Revenue are required to be dismissed since, the same are not maintainable. I order accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →