ITO 25(1)(2), MUMBAI V. VITHAL NIRUN JADHAV, MUMBAI

ITA 1539/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71739 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT SHETTY
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

K IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, J M . / I.T.A. NO. 1539/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICDER 25(1)(2), 203-, C-11 11, PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400 051. VS. SHRI VITHAL NINUN JADHAV, 712, C-WING, RAJ SUNDARAM, MARIUTI NAGAR, S.V. ROAD, DAHISAR (E), MUMBAI- 400 068. PAN : ABJPJ7365B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMIT SHETTY DATE OF HEARING 5-12-13 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 5-12-13 O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) -35, MUMBAI DATED 20-12-2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS . 5,88,314/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FAILED TO MENTION THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IN THE AUDIT RE PORT IN FORM NO. 3 CD. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLO WANCE OF EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5 0,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED THE DETAILS OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA 1539/MUM/2011 2 ` 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTOR ED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS LESS THAN THE M ONETARY LIMIT OF RS. 3 LACS FIXED BY THE CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 20 11 DATED 9-2-2011 REPORTED IN (2011) 332 ITR 1 (STATUTES) FOR FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND EVEN THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT DISPUTED THI S POSITION CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. IN C IT VS. MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) (2009) 318 ITR 148 (BOM), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE REVISED MONETARY LIMIT IN THE CIRCULAR DATED MAY 15 , 2008 WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO ALL THE PENDING APPEALS. A SIMILAR VI EW IS REITERATED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. SMT. VARSHA DILIP KOLHE IN TAX APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2010 DTD. 5-3-2012 AFT ER CONSIDERING THE INSTRUCTION NO. 3/2011 DATED 9-2-2011 AND THE DECIS ION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT - CENTRAL III VS. SURYA HERB AL LTD. DECIDED ON 29-8-2011. 4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS DISC USSED ABOVE AND CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011 DATED 9-2-2011, WE H OLD THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT INVOLVING TAX EFFECT LESS THAN RS. 3 LACS IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSE D AT THE THRESHOLD. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05-12-2013. SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 05-12-2013. RK ITA 1539/MUM/2011 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 35, MUMBA I 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25, MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH F, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI