ITO 16(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. DIGAMBAR P. MUTTEPAWAR, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2444/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 August 2016AY 2009-103 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 as not maintainable because the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for appeals before the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 32,24,887 on account of alleged excess cash deposit. The CIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs. 3,91,013 and deleted the balance.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before the ITAT considering the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Shetty
For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Shri Ajit Shetty

Instant appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 10th January 2014, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–27, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009–10.

2.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen, the Assessing Officer has added an amount of ` 32,24,887 on account of alleged excess cash deposit. However, the learned Commissioner

2 Shri Digambar P. Muttepawar (Appeals), out of the total addition made by the Assessing Officer, sustained the addition to the extent of ` 3,91,013 thereby deleting the balance addition of ` 28,43,864. It has been stated before us that the tax effect on the amount of ` 2,84,864, disputed by the Revenue in the present appeal is below the monitory limit of ` 10 lakh fixed by the CBDT in Circular no.21 of 2015 dated 10th December 2015, in relation to appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and also finding that the CBDT circular under reference applies retrospectively, even to pending appeals, we dismiss the appeal of the Department as not maintainable.

3.

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.08.2016

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →