DCIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. BHAKTI IMPEX, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2396/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 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 revenue's appeal in limine. It was held that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in the CBDT circular, and no exceptions applied, making the appeal not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 22,15,616/- made by the AO on account of labour charges. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below Rs. 10,00,000/-, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

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. Ashok J. Patil
Hearing: 20/06/2016Pronounced: 20/06/2016

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.

2.

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

1.

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.

5.

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.

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 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.

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 20th June, 2016

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →