ITO 13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. BIRENDRA KUMAR JHANWAR, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3987/MUM/2009Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 March 2016AY 2005-064 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 noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rs. 10 lakhs. Citing CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 10 lakhs or less, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition made under Section 68. The addition was on account of shares amounting to Rs. 30,03,250/-. The Revenue argued that the assessee did not cooperate and failed to prove the source of investment.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the tax effect below the threshold specified by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

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

आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, J. M.: This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 09.04.2009 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIII, Mumbai (hereinafter called as the CIT(A) ) for assessment year 2005-06.

(A.Y.05-06) ITO Vs Birendra Kumar Jhanwar

1.

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, and law the Ld.

CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to delete the addition made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act on account of 15000 shares of M/s. Stanley

Securities Ltd. amounting to Rs.30,03,250/- (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, and law the Ld.

CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee did not cooperate during the remand proceedings. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, and law the Ld.

CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee die not prove the source for the investment which is claimed to be with the broker since year before the previous year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the shares supposed to have purchased in 2004-05 merely for Rs.73,650/- by no stretch of imagination can fetch Rs.30,03,250/- in 2005-06. 3. The appellant prays that the order of ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”

2.

At the outset the ld. DR pointed out that the tax effect in this appeal is below Rs.10.00 lakhs and further submitted that in view of the CBDT Circular

(A.Y.05-06) ITO Vs Birendra Kumar Jhanwar No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 brought out by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance , Government of India, the appeal was not maintainable and be dismissed. The ld. DR also agreed to the submission of the ld. AR.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

We find from the records before us that the tax involved in the disputed issue is below Rs.10 Lacs and therefore, in view of the circular no 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 no appeals should be filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal which has tax effect of Rs. 10.00 lacs or less and this circular is also applicable retrospectively to all pending appeals. The relevant extract the said CBDT Circular (Supra) is as under:-

“This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”

4.

Considering the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is therefore dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

(A.Y.05-06) ITO Vs Birendra Kumar Jhanwar

Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd March, 2016 Sd/- Sd/- (Jason P. Boaz) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखा सद�य / Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated :02.03.2016 Ps. Ashwini आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT - concerned 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard File आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →