DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(3), Mumbai V. M/S SAMRIDHI DEALERS PVT LTD., Mumbai

ITA 2919/MUM/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai, which had partly deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding unaccounted investment by M/s Samridhi Dealers Pvt. Ltd. The AO had added Rs. 75,00,000 as unaccounted investment under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was reduced to Rs. 9,93,282 by the CIT(A). The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the addition should not have been restricted based on estimated values of similar properties. The ITAT dismissed the appeal due to the low tax effect, adhering to CBDT guidelines on monetary limits for filing appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123627 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Tax effect
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2919/MUM/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. CIT, Central Circle-6(3), Room No. 1925, 19 th floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Vs. M/s Samridhi Dealers Pvt. Ltd., 132, Utkalmoni Gopabandhu Sarani Burra Bazar, Kolkata, West Bengal-700 007. PAN No. AAJCS 1840 E Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR Assessee by : Mr. Vijay Mehta, AR Date of Hearing : 21/02/2023 Date of pronouncement : 23/02/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals)-54, Mumbai (in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds: 1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of on-money to the extent of Rs.9,93,282/ Rs.75,00,000/ unaccounted investment of the assessee within the meaning of Section 69 of the Income 1961.?. 2. 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT(A) has erred in estimating the addition only to the extent of Rs.4,000/ per square feet in the form of on the assessee to Nish Developers Private Limited, taking the basis of some other flats booked by some other parties during the same period, disregarding the fact that corroborative evidences of on-money paid by the assessee of Rs. 75,00,000/ consideration, in the form of data from pendrive found and seized from Shri Pravin Mishra, a key employee of M/s Nish Dealers Pvt. Ltd., found during the course of search?. 3. 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C accepting the statement of Shri Gulabchand Jain as evidence even though no evidence has been brought on record or co the admittance of payment of Rs.1,14,00,000/ for the flat by Shri Gulabchand Corroborated evidence found during the course of search in the case of M/s Nish Developers (P) Ltd.?" 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) took cognizance of and relied upon the statement of Shri Gulabchand of having paid o confirm the addition made by the AO and thereby dis-regarding specific evidence directly related to the case in favour of general evidence?" 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that in the case, the Assessing Offic of Rs.75,00,000/- which has been further partly deleted by the Ld. of Rs.9,93,282/- as against the addition of Rs.75,00,000/- made by the A.O. as unaccounted investment of the assessee within the meaning of Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT(A) has erred in estimating the addition only to the extent of Rs.4,000/- per sq. ft. being the differential rate per square feet in the form of on-money paid by assessee to Nish Developers Private Limited, taking the basis of some other flats booked by some other parties during the same period, disregarding the fact that corroborative evidences money paid by the assessee of Rs. 75,00,000/- Crore for the year under consideration, in the form of data from pendrive found and seized from Shri Pravin Mishra, a key employee of M/s Nish Dealers Pvt. Ltd., found during the course of search?. 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the statement of Shri Gulabchand Jain as evidence even though no evidence has been brought on record or co-ercion particularly when the admittance of payment of Rs.1,14,00,000/ for the flat by Shri Gulabchand Corroborated the evidence found during the course of search in the case of M/s Nish Developers (P) Ltd.?" "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) took cognizance of and relied upon the statement of Shri Gulabchand of having paid on money to partly confirm the addition made by the AO and thereby regarding specific evidence directly related to the case in favour of general evidence?" At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition for the amount which has been further partly deleted by the Ld. M/s Samridhi Dealers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2919/M/2019 2 AY 2012-13 as against the addition of made by the A.O. as unaccounted investment of the assessee within tax Act, 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT(A) has erred in estimating the addition only to the extent of per sq. ft. being the differential rate money paid by assessee to Nish Developers Private Limited, taking the basis of some other flats booked by some other parties during the same period, disregarding the fact that corroborative evidences money paid by the assessee of Rs. under consideration, in the form of data from pendrive found and seized from Shri Pravin Mishra, a key employee of M/s Nish Dealers Pvt. Ltd., found 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the IT(A) has erred in not accepting the statement of Shri Gulabchand Jain as evidence even though no evidence has been ercion particularly when the admittance of payment of Rs.1,14,00,000/- the evidence found during the course of search in the "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) took cognizance of and relied upon the statement of Shri n money to partly confirm the addition made by the AO and thereby regarding specific evidence directly related to At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that er has made addition for the amount which has been further partly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). According to him, the tax effect involved in the appeal of the Revenue is below the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxe Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 11/07/2018, which has been further enhanced by way of CBDT Circualr No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019. 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative also could but however he submitted that he wants to seek instruction from the respective Pr. Commissioner of Income appeal. 4. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue dispute. Undisputedly, the addition at Rs.75,00,000/- which has also been grounds raised also it is mentioned that the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of Rs.9,93,282/ addition of Rs.75,00,000 Therefore, it is evident that the tax effect involved in the appeal is below the monetary limit of Rs.50,00,000/ further appeal to the ITAT vide 08/08/2019 and therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with liberty to file application for recalling in case subsequently it is found that the case falls under any of the exceptions provided to the said Circular (supra). CIT(A). According to him, the tax effect involved in the appeal of the Revenue is below the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi (CBDT) for filing appeal to the tax Appellate Tribunal vide CBDT Circular no. 3/2018 dt. , which has been further enhanced by way of CBDT Circualr No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019. The Ld. Departmental Representative also could but however he submitted that he wants to seek instruction from Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax for withdrawal of the We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue dispute. Undisputedly, the addition in the case has only being made which has also been further partly deleted also it is mentioned that the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of Rs.9,93,282/ addition of Rs.75,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is evident that the tax effect involved in the appeal is below the monetary limit of Rs.50,00,000/- prescribed for filing further appeal to the ITAT vide CBDT Circular no. 17 and therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with liberty to file application for recalling in case subsequently it is found that the case falls under any of the exceptions provided to the . M/s Samridhi Dealers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2919/M/2019 3 AY 2012-13 CIT(A). According to him, the tax effect involved in the appeal of the Revenue is below the monetary limit prescribed by the Central s, New Delhi (CBDT) for filing appeal to the CBDT Circular no. 3/2018 dt. , which has been further enhanced by way of CBDT The Ld. Departmental Representative also could not controvert but however he submitted that he wants to seek instruction from tax for withdrawal of the We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue-in- in the case has only being made further partly deleted. In the also it is mentioned that the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of Rs.9,93,282/- as against the made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is evident that the tax effect involved in the appeal is prescribed for filing CBDT Circular no. 17/2019 dt. and therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with liberty to file application for recalling in case subsequently it is found that the case falls under any of the exceptions provided to the 5. In the result, the appeal of t Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 on 23/02/2023. Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 23/02/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 02/2023. Sd/- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai M/s Samridhi Dealers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2919/M/2019 4 AY 2012-13 he Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, - OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai