Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)
This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 06/12/2010 passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals)-27, Mumbai for the assessment year 2006-07.
The revenue has challenged the impugned order on following effective grounds of appeal:-
The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. of Rs.22,15,616/- in respect of labour charges without appreciating the facts of the case:
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), Valsad wherein the Ld. CIT(A), Valsad determined the income of the Mr. Anil Chahwalla by estimating the gross profit as well as disallowing certain labour payments made by Shri. Anil Chahwalla u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Shri. Anil Chahwalla filed his retraction three days and the same has to be treated as an afterthought.
4. The Ld. CIT failed to appreciate that the statement of the assessee were recorded on four occasions clearly showing that the statements were voluntary in nature and that the assessee has participated in such proceedings.
The Ld. CIT(A) failed to place the order of Ld. CIT(A), Valsad before the A.O. and hence violated the provisions of the Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law.
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 of labour charges is Rs. 22,15,616/-. Hence, as per the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015, the present appeal is not maintainable.
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 20th June, 2016