ITO WD 21(2)(4), MUMBAI V. SAILAPATHI RAVILLA V., MUMBAI

ITA 203/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 20319914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: S M BANDI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Valuation report; Tax effect

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / I.T.A. NO. 203/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER WD. 21(2)(4), PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, 503, C-10 BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400 051. VS. SHRI SAILAPATHI RAVILLA V., B-110, SHYAM KAMAL, AGARWAL MARKET, VILE PARLE (E), MUMBAI- 400 057. PAN : AHPPR8688F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI NEIL PHILIP ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.M. BANDI DATE OF HEARING 17-03-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17-03-2015 O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - 32, MUMBAI DATED 28-10-2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.9,35,928/- MADE U/S.69B OF THE I.T. ACT IN RESPE CT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF FLAT. I) IN DOING SO, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT AS THE DVO'S REPORT AS PER THE REFERENCE MADE BY TH E A 0 U/S.142A WAS NOT RECEIVED TILL THE DATE OF PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO PROCEEDED TO TAKE THE VALUE OF FLAT A S PER STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES & ADDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TH E PURCHASE VALUE & STAMP DUTY VALUATION U/S.69B. THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE D I ITA 303/MUM/2011 2 VO WAS RECEIVED ON A LATER DATE IN THE OFFICE OF TH E AO ON 16/2/2009, WHEREIN THE FLAT HAS BEEN VALUED AT RS.3 7,33,337/- WHICH IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF RS.31,35,528/- AND THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT B Y THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) DURING THE APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS. II) ALSO THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.9,35,928/- ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE REFERENCE MAD E U/S.142A CANNOT BE SAID TO BE VALID AS THE A 0 HAS NOT POINT ED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOR REJECTED THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE. 2) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER RESTORED. 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. ITA 303/MUM/2011 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17-03-2015. SD/- (SANJAY GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 17-03-2015. RK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 32, MUMBA I 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITY - 21, MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH F, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI