Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR.
BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (Assessment Year:2009-10) ITO-19(1)(1), Mumbai-12 Appellant Vs. Sh. Nitin Ganpat Mudras, Prop. of M/s. G. B. Mudras, 494, Sadhana, 16th Road Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 Respondent PAN: AAAPM7700P अपीलाथ� की ओर से /By Appellant : Shri Randhir Gupta, D.R. ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent : None सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.08.2016 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08.08.2016 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai, dated 18.11.2013 for A.Y. 2009-10 on following grounds: “(1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T Act of Rs. 26,36,500/- being cash deposits in Dena Bank and Excellent Co.op Bank Ltd. holding that A.Y. 09-10 [ITO vs. Sh. Nitin Ganpat Mudras.] Page 2 the genuineness and creditworthiness of the source of cash deposits which were shown as withdrawal from Saraswat Co.op Bank Ltd. credit card was explained ignoring the fact that the assessee has not been able to explain the source of cash deposited in Saraswat Co.op Bank Ltd. during the course of assessment proceedings."
(2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.26,36,500/- on account of unexplained cash credit without appreciating the fact that the remand report was submitted by the AO on the limited issue of cash withdrawal from other bank accounts but the source of funds deposited in those other bank accounts had not been explained."
On the date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of assessee but however the ld. D.R. fairly admitted that the tax effect on the impugned additions is less than the limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular of 10.12.2015 bearing No. 21 of 2015.
2.1 We have heard the ld. D.R. and perused the material on record. On perusing the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, we find that Revenue is aggrieved by the deletion of addition of Rs.26,36,500/- the tax effect of which is below Rs.10 lacs. As per the announcement of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 10.12.2015 (Circular No. 21 of 2015), no Department appeals are to be filed against relief given by ld. CIT(A) before the Income Tax Tribunal unless the tax effect, excluding interest exceeds Rs. 10 lacs and it further states that the instructions will apply retrospectively to the pending appeals. In the present case, since it is an undisputed fact that on the additions which are in dispute, the tax effect is A.Y. 09-10 [ITO vs. Sh. Nitin Ganpat Mudras.] Page 3 less than Rs. 10 lacs and in the absence of any material on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the issue in the present appeal is covered by exemptions specified in clause (8) of the aforesaid CBDT Circular, we are of the view that the monetary limit prescribed by the instructions of the aforesaid CBDT Circular would be applicable to the present appeal of the Department and therefore the present appeal is not maintainable on account of low tax effect. However, in case there is any error in the computation of the tax effect involved or if for any reason, the aforesaid CBDT Circular is not applicable, it would be open to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal. In such circumstances, we dismiss the appeal of Revenue without expressing any opinion on merits of the case.
In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Court on this the 08th day of August, 2016.