ITO 28(2)(5), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAM SOHAN SINGH, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 5400/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 January 2016AY 2009-104 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 held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT. Even on merits, the deletion was justified as the deposits were explained and supported by evidence.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 11,53,212/- by the CIT(A). The addition was on account of bank deposits, which the assessee explained as reimbursement of expenses and earnings from operating a crane.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable due to low tax effect and if the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition based on the assessee's explanation and evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned, but relates to assessment and appeals

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri Joginder Singh,

Hearing: 04/01/2016

आदेश / O R D E R

The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28/09/2015 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The only ground raised in this appeal pertains to deleting the addition of Rs.11,53,212/- on the ground that most of the deposits are related to reimbursement of expenses from his employ which has been acknowledged by him and further the deposits are on account of operation of crane, of which he was a driver. The violation of provision of Rule-46A(3) of the Rules, in not providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer with respect to additional evidence has also been raised by the Revenue.

During hearing, the ld. DR, Shri A.K. Dhondial, advanced arguments, which is identical to the ground raised. On the other hand, nobody represented the assessee, in spite of issuance of registered notice, therefore, I have no option but to proceed ex-parte, qua the assessee and tend to dispose of the appeal on the basis of material available on record.

2.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. I find that the total assessed income in the present appeal is Rs.14,51,100/-, wherein, the addition of Rs.11,53,212/- was deleted by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thus, the tax effect in the present appeal is below prescribed monetary limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. As contained in CBDT instruction No.3/2011 dated 09/02/2011, further instruction No.5/2014 (F No.279/Misc./142/2007-IT(PT) dated 10/07/2014, the CBDT revised the monetary limit for filing the appeal before various Authorities/Courts vide CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015 (F No.279/Misc./142/2007-IT(PT), with retrospective effect and advised/directed the Department not to file appeal in the cases where the tax effect does not exceed the following monetary limit.:-

Sl. Appeals in Income –tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs.) No. 1. Before ITAT 10,00,000/- 2. U/s 260 A before Hon’ble High 20,00,000/- Court 3. Before Hon’ble Supreme Court 25,00,000/-

As per the aforesaid instruction/revised monetary limit, the Department is not to file appeal before the Tribunal, wherein, the tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, consequently, this appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable. Therefore, in view of uncontroverted contention of the ld. DR with respect to prescribed monetary limit and the aforementioned circular of CBDT, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. 2.2. Even on merit, I find that the impugned addition, being the difference in the total of deposits in the bank account of the assessee, it was explained that the assessee is a crane operator, incurred expenses for the crane and reimbursement was made by his employer M/s Kandla Cargo Handlers. The assessee filed confirmation from the employer and most of the deposits relates to reimbursement of expenses, which has been acknowledged by the employer, thus, I find no infirmity in the conclusion of the ld. First Appellate Authority, consequently, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of DR at the conclusion of the hearing on 04/01/2016.

Sd/- (Joginder Singh) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 04/01/2016 f{x~{tÜ? P.S /�नजी स�चव 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, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →