ACIT 14(1), MUMBAI vs. BOBSON INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7485/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 June 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 appeal in limine. The appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 for filing appeals before the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order that deleted an addition made on account of unexplained investment. The Revenue challenged the deletion of addition related to closing stock difference and capital expenditure on repairs.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

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
Hearing: 23/06/2016Pronounced: 23/06/2016

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 30/09/2013 passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals)-25, Mumbai for the assessment year 2009-10.

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) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 on account of difference in closing stock shown in the books vis-à-vis the stock statement submitted to the bank, in view of Hon’ble Punjab And Haryana High Court

judgement in the case of Devgon Rice and General Mills Vs. CIT 263 ITR 391(2003).

2. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the judgement or Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Acrow India Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR (Bom). As the facts of the case are different.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the finding of the A.O. that the premise is owned by the assessee ad whatever repairs and maintenance work has been done is for enduring benefit for the assessee in future ad hence the same is in the nature of capital expenditure.

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative pointed out that the tax involved on this amount is below the monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. As per the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10th December, 2015, new guidelines of monetary limit of filing of appeals by the Department has been issued, whereby the tax effect for filing of appeal before the ITAT has been prescribed as amount exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs. We also 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 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 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →