ITO 11(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. DR. AMITA S. KAPADIA, MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11/03/2011 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The Revenue has raised following grounds:-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) Mumbai has erred in holding that acquisition of gold jewellery stated to be sold by the assessee was explained to the extent of 800 gms, even though no cogent evidence in this regard was furnished by assessee either during assessment or during appellate proceedings.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) Mumbai has erred in accepting the aseessee's contention that gold jewellery to the extent of 800 grams represented jewellery received at the time of marriage of the assessee and birth of daughter, even though no such explanation had been given during assessment proceedings and the assessee had been changing her stand in this regard during assessment and appellate proceedings.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) Mumbai has erred in holding that part of the cash deposits of Rs.ll,50,8001- in the undisclosed bank account of the assessee represented sale proceeds of gold jewellery, even though no evidence in this regard was furnished by the assessee.

2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee Shri Satish Mody, contended that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable as the tax effect is below prescribed monetary limit. This factual matrix was not controverted by Shri Maurya Pratap, ld. DR. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the total income computed by the Assessing Officer is Rs.40,29,750/-. The contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee is that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has granted part relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs.6,21,633/- and Rs.9,70,213/- on account of gold jewellery and telescoping of cash deposits, respectively, thus, as per the remaining addition, the tax effect comes to Rs.4,77,553/-, which is below the prescribed limit of Rs.10 lakh. This factual matrix was consented to be correct by ld. DR. 2.2. In view of the fact that the tax effect in the appeal is below prescribed monetary limit 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.