DCIT CEN CIR -1, MUMBAI V. JYOTI PRAVIN JADHAV, MUMBAI

ITA 5180/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 518019914 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABANI KANTA NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: MALAY H SHAH
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, J, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI D.K.AGARWAL (JM) AND RAJENDRA SINGH(A .M ) ITA NO.5180/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PAWAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, EDULJI ROAD, CHARAI, THANE-400601 SMT.JYOTI PRAVIN JADHAV A/204, GARDEN ESTATE, OPP.PUNJANI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KHOPAT, THANE(W), PAN: AAPPJ2152F APPELLANT V/S RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 29.8.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.8.2011 APPELLANT BY : SHRI ABAN IKANTA NAYAK RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MALAY H. SHAH O R D E R PER D.K.AGARWAL (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.6.2009 PASSED BY THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER : 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALT Y OF RS.2,45,980/- LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESS EE EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF CASH WORTH RS.4 LACS AND ITA NO.5180/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06) 2 JEWELLERY WORTH RS.3,32,105/-, THE UNDISPUTED ADDI TION ACCEPTED BY ASSESSEE; 3. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE TAXES ON CASH SEIZED RS. 4 LACS AND SEIZED JEWELLERY WORTH RS.3,32,105/- ONLY AFTER THE SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 4. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE TAX EFFECT ON THE ABOVE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT OF RS.3,00,000/- FIXED BY THE CB DT. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT DISPUTE ON THE SAID FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. 4 THAT BEING SO AND IN TERMS OF THE RECENT CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011 DATED 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2011 REPORTED IN (2011) 332 ITR 1 (STATUTES) AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) (2009) 318 ITR 148(BOM), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE REVISED MONETARY LIMIT IN THE CIRCULAR DATED MAY 15, 2008 W OULD BE APPLICABLE FOR ALL PENDING APPEALS AND ALSO THE CON SISTENT VIEW OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.5180/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06) 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISM ISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH AUGUST, 2011. SD SD (RAJENDRA SINGH) (D.K. AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 29 TH AUGUST, 2011 SRL: COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. DR CONCERNED BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI