DCIT, C.C.-1, MUMBAI V. SHRI ARUNKUMAR RAMNIKLAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

ITA 4485/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88697 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: NITESH JOSH; VIPUL MODY
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - A BENCH , , BEFORE S/SH. I P BANSAL,JUDICIAL ME MBER & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO.4485/MUM/2013, ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2004-05 DCIT C.C.-1, R.NO. 904, 9TH FLOOR, OLD CGO BLDG. ANNEXE, M K ROAD, MUMBAI-20 VS ARUNKUMAR R. MEHTA, 7TH FLOOR, MEHTA MAHAL, 5TH MATHEW ROAD, OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI-400004. PAN:AABPM3327M ( #$ / ASSESSEE) ( %&#$ / RESPONDENT) ' ( / REVENUE BY :SHRI NEIL PHILIP !)* !)* !)* !)* ( ( ( ( /ASSESSEE BY :SHRI NITESH JOSH & VIPUL MODY ! ! ! ! ' '' ' *+ *+ *+ *+ / DATE OF HEARING :30 - 03 -2015 ,-' ' *+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :30 -03-2015 ! ! ! ! , 1961 1961 1961 1961 ' ' ' ' 254 254 254 254( (( (1 11 1) )) ) *6* 7 *6* 7 *6* 7 *6* 7 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) ! PER RAJENDRA,A.M. CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.11.3.2013OF THE CIT(A)-36, MUMBAI,ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS NO T VALID WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE A.0 WAS IN POSSESSION OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE ASSESSEE BEING BENEFICIARY OF A TRUST ABROAD HAVING DEPOSITS IN BA NK ACCOUNT HELD BY IT. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO SEEN FROM THE BALANCE SHEET RECEIVED FROM THE FOREIGN AUTHORITIES THAT INTEREST WAS ALSO PAID ON THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HELD ABROAD BY THE SAID TRUST. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED REGA RDING THE TRUST WAS SPECIFIC MENTIONING THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN MUMBAI AND T HE NAMES OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE.' ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THE REFERENCE THROUGH THE FIU WAS I N ORDER TO OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION AND DID NOT MEAN THAT THE INFORMATION IN POSSESSION WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL AND SPECIFIC. IT HAS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THERE WAS SOME COGENT MATERIAL IN THE POSSESSION OF A.0 TO FORM A 'BELIEF'. THE SUFFICIENCY OF SUCH INFORMATION IS NO T A JUSTIFIABLE ISSUE. THE APEX COURT IN ITO VS. LAKHMANI MEWAL DAS (103 ITR 477) HAD HEL D THAT ONLY THE EXISTENCE OF THE BELIEF CAN BE CHALLENGED, NOT THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE REASO NS FOR THE BELIEF THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND AND / O R TO ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NEED BE. THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT ON THE GROUNDS STATED ABOVE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-36, MUMBAL MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER RESTORED. ASSESSEE,AN INDIVIDUAL,DERIVING INCOME FROM HOUSE P ROPERTY,SALARY,CAPITAL GAINS,FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON01.11.2004,DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS .29.43 LAKHS.THE CASE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT.AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3)R.W.S. OF THE ACT ON 30. 12.2011,DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT R S.38,59,580/-.IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA)GAVE RELIEF TO TH E ASSESSEE. 2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE (AR)CONTENDED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS LESS THAN 4 LAKHS,THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR)AGREED THAT THE TAX INVOLVED WAS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE TAX ON RETURNED INCOME AND ASSESSED TAX IS RS.9.42 LAKH S AND RS.12.45 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY,THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS ABOUT 3 LAKHS APPROXIMATELY,IN OUR OP INIOIN,APPEALS FILED BY THE AO HAVING TAX EFFECT LESS THAN FOUR LAKHS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE UN TIL AND UNLESS THEY ARE NOT ACCOMPANIED BY AN ASSERTION THAT THE APPEAL FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTIO NAL CATEGORY.WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH ASSERTION. THEREFORE,CONSIDERING THE LOW TAX EFFECT WE ARE DIS MISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED B Y THE AO STANDS DISMISSED. 8*9 !)* + : ; ' 6 !< ' * =>. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH ,MARCH,2015. 7 ' ,-' @ A! 30 B,2015 - ' 6 E SD/- SD/- ( /I P BANSAL) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, A! /DATE: 30.03.2015 SK 7 7 7 7 ' '' ' %*F %*F %*F %*F GF'* GF'* GF'* GF'* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / #$ 2. RESPONDENT / %&#$ 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ H I , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / H I 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / FJ6 %*! , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ 6 8 &F* %* //TRUE COPY// 7! / BY ORDER, K / = DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.