DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PERIWINKLE FASHIONS P.LTD, MUMBAI

Jt. C.I.T Vs. M/s. Periwinkle Fashions Pvt. Ltd 1. “On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order under section 154 of the Act and thereby modifying his earlier appellate order dated 29.09.2011 passed under section 250 of the Act, without appreciating that in the said order dated 29.09.2011, there was no mistake apparent from record as envisaged in section 154 of the Act, to warrant any such rectification under section 154 of the Act.” 2. “On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in reducing the disallowance of interest under section 24(b) of the Act of Rs.50,23,473/- to Rs.6,51,900/- which had been enhanced by the Ld. CIT(A) from Rs.15,32,900/- to Rs.50,23,473/-, without appreciating that there was no evidence on record to warrant and justify such reduction as the assessee had failed to adduce evidence to show that opening balance of loan had been invested in house property and hence the corresponding interest was allowable under section 24(b) of the Act.” 3. “On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in reducing the enhanced disallowance of interest under section 24(b) of the Act, without appreciating that the assesee had failed to substantiate its claim of deduction under section 24(b) of the Act in spite of specific opportunity afforded by the CIT(A) to the assessee vide notice under section 251(2) of the Act.”

At the outset the ld. AR of the assessee 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 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.

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