ITO 9(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. TERRAIN INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 26/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 July 2016AY 2010-114 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 appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT's circular revising monetary limits for appeals, and the tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting a disallowance made under Section 68. The CIT(A) had admitted additional evidence without providing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine it.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance under Section 68 without proper appreciation of the assessee's onus and the admission of additional evidence. The appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds related to monetary limits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJENDRA & SHRI C.N. PRASAD,

For Respondent: Shri Subhash Shetty
Hearing: 04.07.2016Pronounced: 04.07.2016

आदेश / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM:

1.

This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-20, Mumbai dated 04.10.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11.

2. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act without appreciating the fact that during the assessment proceedings the assessee failed in discharging its onus to establish and explain the nature and source of the cash transaction credited in its books of account?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act without appreciating the fact that the additional evidence admitted by him was not produced before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings?

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance u/s. 68 without providing opportunity of examination of additional evidence to the Assessing Officer?”

3. Before going into the merits of the case, we consider CBDT’s latest instructions vide Circular No.21/2015 dated 10/12/2015, the relevant portion of which read as under:-

“ Circular No. 21/2015 F No 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt) Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board Direct Taxes New Delhi the 10th December, 2015

Subject: Revision of monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before Supreme Court - measures for reducing litigation - Reg –

Reference is invited to Board's instruction No 5/2014 dated 10.07.2014 wherein monetary limits and other conditions for filing departmental appeals (in Income-tax matters) before Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before the Supreme Court were specified.

2.

In supersession of the above instruction, it has been decided by the Board that departmental appeals may be filed on merits before Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before the Supreme Court keeping in view the monetary limits and conditions specified below.

3.

Henceforth, appeals/ SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder: -

S. Appeals in Income-tax Monetary Limit No matters (in Rs) 1. Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- 2. Before High Court 20,00,000/- 3. Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/-

It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.”

4.

It is further clarified by the Board in its circular that these instructions will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts and Tribunals. It is also made clear that pending appeals below the monitory limits fixed in para-3 above may be withdrawn or not pressed.

5.

In the case in hand, the total demand as per CIT(A)’s order is less than the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, which is below the monetary limits as mentioned in CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015 (supra). Following the same, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 4th July, 2016.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →