Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 5, Pune V. Madhuri Satish Misal, Pune

ITA 1504/PUN/2019

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the Revenue against Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal concerning the assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11. The primary issues in the 2008-09 appeal were the deletion of a substantial addition made under Section 41(1) regarding cessation of liability and the enhancement of unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition of Rs.1,99,00,000, which the Assessing Officer had added in the re-assessment order, and had not allowed the enhancement of the unexplained cash deposits from Rs.15 lakhs to Rs.22,15,870. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions, finding no merit in the Revenue's arguments. In the 2010-11 appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the case based on the income threshold limit set by the CBDT's circular.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137374 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: DismissedDismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos.1504 & 1886/PUN./2019 Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 The DCIT, Circle-5, 3 rd Floor, PMT Bldg., Shankarsheth Road, Swargate, Pune – 411 037 Maharashtra vs. Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal, D-3, Ramya Nagari, ‘D’ Wing, Bibvewadi, Pune PIN – 411 037 PAN ABBPM0704H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri M.G. Jasnani For Assessee : Shri Kishor Phadkhe Date of Hearing : 22.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05.01.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. These Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 2008- 09 & 2010-11, arise against the separate CIT(A)-2, Pune’s as 2 ITA.No.1504 & 1886/PUN./2019 Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal, Pune. many orders dated 07.08.2019 & 24.09.2019, passed in case No.PN /CIT(A)-2 / DCIT Cir-5 / PN / 309 / 2014-15 and in case No. PN / CIT(A)-2 / DCIT, Cir-5 / PN /270 / 2016-17, involving proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), assessment year-wise respectively. 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. We proceed assessment year-wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA.No.1504/PUN./2019 – A.Y. 2008-09 : 4. The Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground raised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse the CIT(A)'s action deleting sec.41(1) cessation of liability addition amounting to Rs.1,99,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer in his re-assessment order dated 24.03.2014. The Learned CIT(A)'s lower appellate detailed discussion to this effect reads as follows : “8.5. DECISION : The observations of the AO, submissions of the appellant, remand report, rejoinder of the AR and the materials on record have been considered. 8.5.1. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 24.03.2014 stated that the assessee 3 ITA.No.1504 & 1886/PUN./2019 Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal, Pune. 4 ITA.No.1504 & 1886/PUN./2019 Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal, Pune. 5 ITA.No.1504 & 1886/PUN./2019 Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal, Pune. 6 ITA.No.1504 & 1886/PUN./2019 Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal, Pune. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival stands against and in support of the CIT(A)'s foregoing detailed discussion. The Revenue could hardly pinpoint anything from the case records that the assessee had sought to allow the impugned sums as deduction in any assessment year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability followed by its cessation of liability in the relevant previous year. She also appears to have not maintained any P & L A/c to this effect as well. And there is further no rebuttal to the Assessing Officer’s favourable remand report dated 29.05.2017 wherein he appears to have factually verified the subsequent repayment as well. The CIT(A)'s foregoing detailed discussion deleting the instant sec.41(1) cessation of liability addition amounting to Rs.1,99,00,000/- in issue stands upheld therefore. 6. The outcome is hardly different in Revenue’s second substantive ground seeking to revive unexplained cash deposits addition of Rs.22,15,870/- made by the Assessing Officer once it has come on record in CIT(A)'s detailed discussion in the corresponding paragraph nos.7.5 to 7.5.4 that the assessing authority had already made addition under the very head to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs in his original assessment dated 31.12.2010. We make it clear that Revenue has not been able to bring any fresh tangible material or 7 ITA.No.1504 & 1886/PUN./2019 Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal, Pune. specific evidence against the assessee so that we could enhance the same from Rs.15 lakhs to Rs.22.15 lakhs in question. The Revenue’s instant latter ground as well as the main appeal ITA.No.1504/PUN./ 2019 are rejected therefore. 7. Coming to the Revenue’s latter appeal ITA.No.1886/PUN./2019 for assessment year 2010-11, it transpires during the course of hearing that the same suffers from lower than the prescribed tax limit of Rs.50 lakhs as per the CBDT’s circular no.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 made applicable with retrospective effect. Rejected accordingly. 8. These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA.Nos.1504 & 1886/PUN./2019 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05.01.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 05 th January, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. CIT(A) concerned. 4. The CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.