ITO 28(2)(5), NAVI MUMBAI V. RAM SOHAN SINGH, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 5400/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4500 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K DHONDIAL J
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Tax effect

Judgement Text

, - , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI , ! ' , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ITA NO.5400/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ITO-28(2)(5), 3 RD FLOOR, TOWER NO.6, R. NO.308, VASHI RLY. STATION COMPLEX, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI-400703 / VS. SHRI RAM SOHAN SINGH, KL-5/13/11, SEC-3E, KALAMBOLI, NAVI MUMBAI-410218 / REVENUE / ASSESSEE P.A. NO. BICPS2232M $ % & / REVENUE BY SHRI A.K.DHONDIAL JCIT-DR $ % & / ASSESSEE BY NONE / DATE OF HEARING 04/01/2016 & / DATE OF ORDER: 04/01/2016 & / O R D E R THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 28/09/2015 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL PERTAINS TO D ELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,53,212/- ON THE GROUND THAT MOST OF THE DEPOSITS ARE RELATED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES F ROM HIS 2 EMPLOY WHICH HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY HIM AND FURTH ER THE DEPOSITS ARE ON ACCOUNT OF OPERATION OF CRANE, OF W HICH HE WAS A DRIVER. THE VIOLATION OF PROVISION OF RULE-46 A(3) OF THE RULES, IN NOT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS ALSO BEEN R AISED BY THE REVENUE. 2. DURING HEARING, THE LD. DR, SHRI A.K. DHONDIAL, ADVANCED ARGUMENTS, WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUN D RAISED. ON THE OTHER HAND, NOBODY REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE, IN SPITE OF ISSUANCE OF REGISTERED NOTICE, THEREFORE, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PROCEED EX-PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE AND TEND TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2.1. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND TH AT THE TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS RS.14,51,1 00/-, WHEREIN, THE ADDITION OF RS.11,53,212/- WAS DELETED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THUS, THE TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS BELOW PRESCRIBED MO NETARY LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AS CONTAINED IN CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.3/2011 DATED 09/02/2011, FURTHE R INSTRUCTION NO.5/2014 (F NO.279/MISC./142/2007-IT(P T) DATED 10/07/2014, THE CBDT REVISED THE MONETARY LIM IT FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE VARIOUS AUTHORITIES/COURTS VIDE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21 OF 2015, DATED 10/12/2015 (F NO.279/MISC./142/2007-IT(PT), WITH RETROSPECTIVE EF FECT AND ADVISED/DIRECTED THE DEPARTMENT NOT TO FILE APPEAL IN THE 3 CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE FOLL OWING MONETARY LIMIT.:- SL. NO. APPEALS IN INCOME TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS.) 1. BEFORE ITAT 10,00,000/ - 2. U/S 260 A BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT 20,00,000/ - 3. BEFORE HONBLE SUPREME COURT 25,00,000/ - AS PER THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTION/REVISED MONETARY L IMIT, THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL, WHEREIN, THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/- , CONSEQUENTLY, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS NOT MAI NTAINABLE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF UNCONTROVERTED CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR WITH RESPECT TO PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT AND THE AFOREMENTIONED CIRCULAR OF CBDT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 2.2. EVEN ON MERIT, I FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDIT ION, BEING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TOTAL OF DEPOSITS IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CRANE OPERATOR, INCURRED EXPENSES FOR THE CRANE A ND REIMBURSEMENT WAS MADE BY HIS EMPLOYER M/S KANDLA C ARGO HANDLERS. THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION FROM THE EMPLOYER AND MOST OF THE DEPOSITS RELATES TO REIMBURSEMENT O F EXPENSES, WHICH HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE EMPLOY ER, THUS, I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE LD. FIRST 4 APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL OF TH E REVENUE IS DISMISSED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN T HE PRESENCE OF DR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 04/01/2016. SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) ! ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 04/01/2016 F{X~{T? P.S / ! & $ )!*+ ,&+-* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '#$%& / THE APPELLANT 2. '(%& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ) * ( '#$ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. ) ) * / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. -./ ' , ) '#$ ' 1 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /2 3$ / GUARD FILE. & / BY ORDER, (-# ' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI