ITO 25(3) (3), MUMBAI vs. RAJESH L RATHOD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4219/MUM/2010Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 February 2016AY 2007-083 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 of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which restricted additions on account of undisclosed income, deleted additions on account of unsecured loans, and restricted additions on wages. The total disputed quantum was Rs. 28,32,099/-.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned as the basis for dismissal, but the appeal was filed under Section 143(3).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

For Appellant: Shri. B.S.Bist
For Respondent: Shri. Bhupendra Shah
Hearing: 22/02/2016Pronounced: 22/02/2016

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against impugned order dated 12/03/2010 passed by the CIT(Appeals)-35, Mumbai in respect of the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for the assessment year 2007-08, on the following grounds:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition on account of undisclosed income from Rs. 16,53,496/- to Rs. 76,441/- relying on the submission of the assessee without appreciating the fact that the same submission was found out erroneous by the A.O. at the time of assessment..

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,24,079/- on account of unsecured loan without appreciating the fact that the genuineness of transaction was not proved.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of 10% of total wages to 5% without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not substantiate it’s claim before the Assessing Officer.. 4. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground to be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add new ground.

2.

At the outset, it is noticed that, the quantum in dispute is only Rs. 28,32,099/- and the tax effect on this amount is 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 is dismissed in limine.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22th February, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →