ITO, WD-23(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY vs. VIDYA SAGAR GUPTA, HOOGHLY

This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata dated 08.09.2015 for the assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds:- I. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying the principle of peak credit in the absence of cash withdrawal from the undisclosed bank account.

2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying the principle of peak credit out of transactions of an undisclosed bank account of assessee without establishing the fact that the credit entries in the undisclosed bank account were inconsequential to the assessee's disclosed business and its accounts.

3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the fresh evidences from the assessees resulting in minimizing the purchase figure without giving any opportunity to AO for examining the fresh ./2015 Assessment year: 2011-2012 Page 2 of 3

evidences thus violating the provision of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule, 1962.

2 As pointed out by the ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset, the tax effect involved in this appeal of the Revenue is less than the revised monetary limit recently fixed by the CBDT vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 at Rs.10,00,000/- for filing the appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal and this position clearly evident from the grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal is not disputed even by the ld. D.R. In Circular No. 21/2015 (supra) recently issued by the CBDT, the monetary limit for filing the appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal has been increased to Rs.10,00,000/- and as clarified in the said Circular, the said monetary limit is applicable retrospectively even to the appeals pending before the Tribunal. The CBDT has also instructed that such pending appeals below this specified tax limit of Rs.10,00,000/- may be withdrawn/ not pressed. Keeping in view the instruction given by the CBDT vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, which is squarely applicable in the present case, the appeal filed by the Revenue in this case is treated as withdrawn/not pressed and dismissed accordingly.