ITO WD 21(3)(3), MUMBAI V. LUNAR LUBRICANTS, MUMBAI

ITA 2984/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8256 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J PREMANAND
• Assessee Lawyers: UMESH KOLAPAKAR
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / I.T.A. NO. 2984/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER WD. 21(3)(3), ROOM NO. 507, 5 TH FLOOR,, PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA, MUMBAI. VS. LUNAR LUBRICANTS, F-8, NEELKANTH UDYOG BHAVAN, KURLA ANDHERI ROAD, SAKINAKA, MUMBAI- 400 072. PAN : AAAFL0142N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI J. PREMANAND ASSESSEE BY : SHRI UMESH KOLAPAKAR DATE OF HEARING 04-12-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04-12-2014 O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) -32, MUMBAI DATED 24-02-2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 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 CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING T HE ADDITION MADE OF RS.1,44,276/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFER ENCE BETWEEN SALES AS PER TRADING ACCOUNT AND AS PER VAT RETURN.' ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE AD DITION MADE OF RS.75,571/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEE N PURCHASES AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND AS PER VAT RETURN.' I ITA 2984/MUM/2012 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.6,6 1,407 / - MADE U/ S 41(1) O F THE ACT IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE LIABILITY WAS MORE T HAN 8 YEARS OLD AND DOES NOT MENTION THE CURRENT STATUS THAT THE LIABILITY IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO BE PAID .' ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ADDITI ON MADE OF RS.6,61,407/- MADE U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE LIABILITY IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO BE PAID.' THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER BE 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 2984/MUM/2012 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04-12-2014. SD/- (SANJAY GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 04-12-2014. 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 A, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI