ITO 25(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. VIRAL P MODI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 128/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 March 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 filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT circular which stipulated a monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT, and the tax effect in this case was below that limit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which restricted an addition for unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) had also accepted the assessee's version of cash withdrawals and deleted an amount as unexplained investment.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue was maintainable based on the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The grounds also raised issues regarding unexplained cash credit, additional evidence, and cash withdrawals for purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI JASON P. BOAZ (AM) & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JM)

For Appellant: Shri. Mukundraj M.Chate
Hearing: 03/03/2016Pronounced: 03/03/2016

The aforesaid appeal have been filed by the Revenue against the impugned orders dated 11/10/2012, passed by the CIT(A)-35, Mumbai in respect of the order of assessment passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2009-10 on the following grounds:- i) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to Rs. 19,37,319/- unexplained cash credit u/s 68 instead of Rs. 45,32,523/- without giving any basis for arriving at such a figure.” ii) “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in arriving at a figure of Rs. 19,17,913/- on the basis of recast Trading & Profit & Loss a/c filed by the appellant without giving an opportunity to the A.O. to examine the additional evidence produced by the assessee in violation of provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T.Rules, 1962”. iii) “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting assessee’s version that cash withdrawal from undisclosed bank is for the purpose of purchases etc. without verifying its implication under the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act-1961.” iv) “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as unexplained investment without bringing anything on record nor giving any cogent reasons for doing so.” v) “The appellant prays that the order of the Ld.CIT (A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO’ be restored.” vi) “The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground.”

2.

At the outset, it is noticed that, the disputed issue in this appeal is only Rs. 25,88,934/- and the tax effect on this amount is much below the specified monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. As per the latest CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10th December, 2015, new guidelines of monetary limit for filing of appeals by the Department has been issued, whereby the tax effect for filing of appeal before the ITAT has been prescribed at Rs. 10 lakhs. In the said Circular, it has been specifically clarified that the said instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable and are dismissed in limine.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd March, 2016

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →