ITO 17(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. NAGINDAS RATHOD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3962/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 June 2016AY 2006-073 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 in limine as the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, and no exceptions applied. The appeal was found to be not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the CIT(A) which deleted an addition of Rs. 28,00,000/- made by the AO as unexplained cash credit. The assessee's counsel pointed out that the tax effect was below Rs. 10,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI

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

For Appellant: Shri. Akhilendra Pratap Yadav
For Respondent: Shri. Hormuzd Jamshedji
Hearing: 23/06/2016Pronounced: 23/06/2016

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 11/02/2011 passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals)-29, Mumbai for the assessment year 2006-07.

2.

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

1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to delete the addition of an amount of Rs. 28,00,000/- unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I. T. Act.”

2. “The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the surrounding circumstances relating to the transaction and the order based on such improper appreciation of the facts and prevailing judicial decisions is erroneous and may be quashed.”

3. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in this case is below Rs.10,00,000/- as the total addition made by the AO in respect unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act is Rs. 28,00,000/-. 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 23rd June, 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 →