ITO 26(1)(1), MUMBAI V. SONIA SANJAY SETHI, MUMBAI

ITA 4674/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2655 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A K GHOSH
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E B ENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I .TA NO. 4674/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 THE ITO - 26(1)(1), MUMBAI / VS. SMT. SONIA SANJAY SETHI, 5, 1 ST FLOOR, YASHODHAN, DINSHAW VACHHA ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AQFPS 326A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI SANJEEV KASHYAP / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A.K. GHOSH / DATE OF HEARING : 25.07.2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.07.2016 / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-28, MUMBAI DATED 28.04.2014 PERTAINI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER : ITA NO. 4674/M/2014 2 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN DEL ETING THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SE C. 192 AND SEC. 139(1) ARE PARI MATERIAL OR COGNATE PROVIS IONS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT COMPLIANCE OF SEC. 192 CANNOT MAKE THE PROVISION OF SEC. 139(1) OTIOSE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A)ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SUO M OTO DISCLOSED THE SALARY FROM IDFC BANK INTEREST AND CA PITAL GAIN IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A)ERRED ON RELYING ON HONBLE SUPREME COURT DEC ISION IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD VS CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THAT THE FACTS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. 3. BEFORE GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, WE CON SIDER CBDTS LATEST INSTRUCTIONS VIDE CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10/12/2015, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH READ AS UNDER:- CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 F NO 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ (PT) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD DIRECT TAXES NEW DELHI THE 10TH DECEMBER, 2015 SUBJECT: REVISION OF MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING O F APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TR IBUNAL AND HIGH COURTS AND SLP BEFORE SUPREME COURT - MEAS URES FOR REDUCING LITIGATION - REG ITA NO. 4674/M/2014 3 REFERENCE IS INVITED TO BOARD'S INSTRUCTION NO 5/20 14 DATED 10.07.2014 WHEREIN MONETARY LIMITS AND OTHER CONDITIONS FOR FILING DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS (IN INCO ME-TAX MATTERS) BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND HIGH COURTS AND SLP BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WERE SPECIFIED. 2. IN SUPERSESSION OF THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION, IT HA S BEEN DECIDED BY THE BOARD THAT DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS MAY BE FILED ON MERITS BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND HIGH COURTS AND SLP BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT KEEPING IN VIEW TH E MONETARY LIMITS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BELOW. 3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/ SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER: - S. NO APPEALS IN INCOME - TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS) 1. BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 10,00,000/ - 2. BEFORE HIGH COURT 20,00,000/ - 3. BEFORE SUPREME COURT 25,00,000/ - IT IS CLARIFIED THAT AN APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED MERELY BECAUSE THE TAX EFFECT IN A CASE EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT S PRESCRIBED ABOVE. FILING OF APPEAL IN SUCH CASES IS TO BE DECI DED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 4. IT IS FURTHER CLARIFIED BY THE BOARD IN ITS CIRC ULAR THAT THESE INSTRUCTIONS WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN HIGH COURTS AND T RIBUNALS. IT IS ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE MONITORY LIMITS FIXED IN PARA-3 ABOVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN OR NOT PRESSED. 5. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE TOTAL DEMAND AS PER CIT (A)S ORDER IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,00,000/-, WHICH IS B ELOW THE MONETARY ITA NO. 4674/M/2014 4 LIMITS AS MENTIONED IN CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 10.12.20 15 (SUPRA). FOLLOWING THE SAME, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (C.N. PRASAD ) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ %' /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; (' DATED 25 TH JULY, 2016 . % . ./ RJ , SR. PS !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. *+ ,%%-. , -.! , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , /01 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, *% //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI