What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as it did not fall under any exceptions in the CBDT circular. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

The Revenue appealed an order of the CIT(A) regarding the calculation of profit on cash deposits. The assessee also filed a cross-objection. The tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal based on the tax effect threshold set by CBDT circulars. A secondary issue concerned the calculation of profit on undisclosed bank account deposits.

ITO vs Manoj Hirji Visaria | ITAT Mumbai 2016

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

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

For Appellant: Smt. Vinita Menon

For Respondent: Shri. Ashok Mehta

Hearing: 13/06/2016Pronounced: 13/06/2016

Heard together (2 matters)

CO No. 15/MUM/2015

ITA No. 7054/MUM/2013

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

The present appeal 06/09/2013 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-30, Mumbai for the Asst. year 2009-10.

CO No. 15/MUM/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 The assessee has also filed Cross Objection No. 15/Mum/2015. Since the said appeal and cross appeal pertain to the same assessee for the same assessment year, both were clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

The revenue has challenged the impugned order dated 06/09/2013 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the following effective grounds:-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to take the peak credit and to calculate G.P.@ 12.6% as against total cash deposit in the undisclosed bank account without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not provide evidence in respect of cash deposit out of cash withdrawals.”

2. The appellant prays that the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO 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/-. 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.

CO No. 15/MUM/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 CO 15/Mum/2015.

The assessee has filed the present Cross Objection on the following grounds:- “1. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in stating that the “ on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to take the peak credit and to calculate G.P. @ 12.6% as against total cash deposit in the undisclosed bank account without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not provide evidence in respect of cash deposit out of cash withdrawals.”

2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in adding both the peak credit Rs. 1,63,312/- and the gross profit of Rs. 2,54,318/- on the same amount of Rs. 20,24,823/-.”

Since we have already dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, the present cross objection of the assessee has become infructuous and the same is therefore dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the department and Cross Objection filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10 are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13th June, 2016

ITO 19(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. MANOJ HIRJI VISARIA, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments