ACIT CIR 16(2), MUMBAI V. AMARSONS COLLECTIONS ( BREACH CANDY), MUMBAI

ITA 316/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1645 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH SANGHAVI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI . ! ' #$%& , ' () ! BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VP AND SHRI N.K. BILLA IYA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 316/MUM/2012 ( * * * * / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 THE ACIT, CIR. 16(2), MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI-400 007 / VS. M/S. AMARSONS COLLECTIONS (BREACH CANDY), 63A, BHULABHAI DESAI ROAD, MUMBAI-400 026 )+ ' ./ ,- ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAFFAO311H ( +. / APPELLANT ) .. ( /0+. / RESPONDENT ) +. 1 / APPELLANT BY: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR /0+. 2 1 / RESPONDENT BY SHRI MANISH SANGHAVI 2 3' / DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2013 45* 2 3' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :08.01.2013 (6 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-27, MUMBAI DT.17.10.2011 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2002-03. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEA L: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AO HAVING ESTI MATED THE GP BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 143(3), CANNOT MAKE THE ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASE ONCE AGAIN IN THE ASSESSM ENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. ITA NO. 316/MUM/2012 2 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E POINTED OUT THAT THE TOTAL TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS TO TH E TUNE OF RS. 2,87,608/-. TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM, THE LD. COUNSEL FILED A CHART STATING THAT THE QUANTUM OF INCOME IN DISPUTE IS RS. 8,05,628/- ON W HICH TAX + SURCHARGE COMES TO RS. 2,87,608/-. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 3,00,000/-, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY CONCE DED THAT TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 3,00,000/-. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD DR AS WELL AS THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.3 LAKHS AS PER THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 FOR FILING OF APPEAL BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN SUCH A SITUATION THE APPEAL FILED IN CONTRAVENTION OF SUCH LIMIT CANNOT BE SUST AINED. THIS VIEW IS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. S ATISH CHANDRA, 10 SOT 383. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CAMCO COLOUR CO. 254 ITR 565, WHERE IN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEING LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT AS PRESCRIBED IN BOARD CIRC ULAR, THE SAME IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 6. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW THE CIRCULAR OF 2011 AS APP LICABLE TO THE APPEALS FILED EARLIER, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MADHUKAR K INAMDAR (HUF) REPORTED IN 318 ITR 149 THAT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE PRIOR TO THE CIRCU LAR SHALL ALSO BE GOVERNED THE MONETARY LIMIT OF THIS CIRCULAR. SIMIL AR VIEW HAS BEEN ITA NO. 316/MUM/2012 3 REITERATED BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 29.04.2011 IN ITO VS INDIA SAFETY VAULTS LTD., IN I TA NO. 648- 651/M/2010. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, WE HOLD THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE CANNOT BE TAKEN UP FOR DECISION ON MERITS AS THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS ADMITTEDLY LESS THAN RS. 3.00 LACS. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7 38 ,) 2 9 '7, 2 ,3 % ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.01.2013 (6 2 5* ' 9 :(8 8.1.2013 5 2 ; SD/- SD/- (D.MANMOHAN) (N.K. BILLAIYA) ! VICE PRESIDENT ' () / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; :( DATED 08.01.2013 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA NO. 316/MUM/2012 4 (6 2 /3# <#*3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0+. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. = ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. = / CIT 5. #>; /3 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ; ? / GUARD FILE. (6 / BY ORDER, 0#3 /3 //TRUE COPY// / , DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI