ITO 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. ARVIND D. BHANUSHALI, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4830/MUM/2010Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 December 2015AY 2006-073 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 less than the prescribed monetary limit in the applicable CBDT circular. The circular was held to be applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect and the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

आदेश / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal, filed by the Revenue, being 22-3-2010 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 26, Mumbai (Hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”), for the assessment year 2006-07.

2.

The Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in the memo of appeal filed read as under:-

ITA 4830/M/10 2

I. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. u/s.68 of the I. T. Act on account of unexplained cash credits of Rs. 20,37,000/- ignoring the material facts available on the record that the several statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee to explain cash deposits during the assessment proceedings.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. u/s.68 of the I. T. Act on account of unexplained cash credits of Rs. 20,37,000/- ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to give satisfactory details/Explanation with respect to nature and source of the said cash deposits."

3.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs. 10 lacs as the income assessed is Rs. 21,41,360/- while the declared income was Rs. 1,04,360/- and the assessment was framed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide assessment order dated 22-12-2008. The ld. Counsel submitted that as per the latest CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, F. No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt) dated 10th December, 2015 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, no appeal shall be filed by the Revenue in respect of an assessment year or years in which the tax effect is less than the monetary limit specified in para 3. Para 3 of the Circular No. 21/2015

S No. Appeals in Income tax Monetary Limit matters (in Rs) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- 2 Before High Court 20,00,000/- 3 Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/- In the said circular vide para 10, it is stipulated that this instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in ITA 4830/M/10 3 High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed.

4.

The ld. D.R. fairly conceded that tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs. 10 lacs and the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 is applicable to this appeal and the appeal is not maintainable.

5.

Keeping in view the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 which is applicable from retrospective effect and is also applicable to pending appeals and also in view of DR stating before us that this appeal is now not maintainable in view of above CBDT Circular, we hold that the present appeal filed by the Revenue involving tax effect less than Rs. 10 lacs is not maintainable. The same is, therefore, dismissed at the threshold.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →