DCIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI vs. DR. SARITA DAVARE, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1788/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2016AY 2007-083 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine. This was because the tax effect was below Rs. 10,00,000, and the appeal did not fall under any exceptions specified in the relevant CBDT Circular.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition made on account of capitalized amount. The CIT(A) had held that only undisclosed income and assets detected during search could be brought to tax under Section 153A.

What were the issues?

Whether the scope of Section 153A is limited to assessing only income based on incriminating documents found during search, and whether the appeal is maintainable based on tax effect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A

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, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Respondent: Shri. Vijay Kothari
Hearing: 29/09/2016Pronounced: 29/09/2016

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 27/12/2013 passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals)-38, Mumbai for the assessment year 2007-08.

2.

The revenue has challenged the impugned order on following effective grounds:-

1.

"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of capitalized amount of Rs.16,28,432/-, by not considering and deciding the issue on merits".

2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that only undisclosed income and undisclosed assets "detected during search" could be brought to tax".

3 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by in holding that the scope of Section 153A is limited to assessing only income based on the incriminating documents found during search, thereby denying revenue the opportunity of taxing other escaped income, that comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer".

4 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai bench (Special Bench) in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (137 ITD 287), whereas the decision in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd has been further contested in appeal and the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court is still pending".

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in this case is below Rs.10,00,000/- Hence, as per the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015, the present appeal is not maintainable.

4.

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.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th September, 2016

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →