ACIT, Circle-6(1)(2), Mumbai, Mumbai V. Sameer Kishore Koticha, Mumbai

ITA 545/MUM/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2015 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 545/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Asst. CIT Circle-6(1)(2), Room No. 506, 5 th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Sameer Kishore Koticha, 2301, 23 rd floor Raheja Princess, S.K. Bole Road, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. PAN NO. AAWPK 9080 A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue by : Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27/05/2024 Date of pronouncement : 30/05/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs.1,43,50,580/ earned by the assessee but not offered to tax on the ground that property bein consideration? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in holding that deeming provision of Section 23(1)(c) of the Act is not applicable in the case of assessee as property bein estimating the market rate of vacant deemed let out property as worked out by the AO is not as per Law ? 3. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Offic restored. 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect involved in the appeal by the Revenue is below the threshold limit of Rs.50,00,000/ Board of Direct Taxes (in short ‘ 20/08/2018 for filing appeal before the Income Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) and therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. 2.1 The Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a copy of the computation sheet which is part of the assessment order. According to this computation sheet aggregate income tax liability including surcharge has been worked out to Rs.18,56,39994/ Ld. counsel referred to the tax liability worked out by the a on the returned income as reflected in the return of income filed for the year under consideration counsel for the assessee has filed a chart whereas difference of the assessed tax liability of Rs.18,56,39,992/ liability of Rs.18,11,31,378/ Rs.45,08,614/-. In view of this working the tax effect in the issue in addition of Rs.1,43,50,580/- on account of rental income earned by the assessee but not offered to tax on the ground that property being vacant during the year under consideration? Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in holding that deeming provision of Section 23(1)(c) of the Act is not applicable in the case of assessee as property being vacant and not let out and as such estimating the market rate of vacant deemed let out property as worked out by the AO is not as per Law ? The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Offic restored. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect involved in the appeal by the Revenue is below the threshold limit of Rs.50,00,000/- which is prescribed by the Board of Direct Taxes (in short ‘CBDT’) vide Circular No. for filing appeal before the Income Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) and therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. The Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a copy of the putation sheet which is part of the assessment order. According to this computation sheet aggregate income tax liability including surcharge has been worked out to Rs.18,56,39994/ Ld. counsel referred to the tax liability worked out by the a on the returned income as reflected in the return of income filed for the year under consideration, which is Rs.18,11,31,379/ counsel for the assessee has filed a chart whereas difference of the assessed tax liability of Rs.18,56,39,992/- and returned income tax liability of Rs.18,11,31,378/- has been worked out to . In view of this working the tax effect in the issue in Sameer Kishore Koticha 2 ITA No. 545/Mum/2024 on account of rental income earned by the assessee but not offered to tax on the ground g vacant during the year under Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in holding that deeming provision of Section 23(1)(c) of the Act is not applicable in the case of g vacant and not let out and as such estimating the market rate of vacant deemed let out property The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect involved in the appeal by the Revenue is below the which is prescribed by the Central vide Circular No. 3/2018 dt. for filing appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) and therefore, this appeal is liable The Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a copy of the putation sheet which is part of the assessment order. According to this computation sheet aggregate income tax liability including surcharge has been worked out to Rs.18,56,39994/-. Further, the Ld. counsel referred to the tax liability worked out by the assessee on the returned income as reflected in the return of income filed for is Rs.18,11,31,379/-. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a chart whereas difference of the and returned income tax has been worked out to . In view of this working the tax effect in the issue in dispute challenged before the ITAT is below the prescribed threshold of Rs.50,00,000/ assessee submitted that the Revenue should not have filed this appeal and therefore, it need to be dismissed as infructuous. 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) however submitted that in the effect in the form No. 36 has been wo Rs.50,99,478/- which is marginally higher than the prescribed threshold limit. Therefore, the objection of the Ld. counsel for the assessee need to be rejected. 4. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Though in the form No. 36 filed by the Revenue the tax effect has been stated verification of the computation of the sheet issued along with the assessment order , the assessed tax effect liability out to Rs.18,56,39,994/ Rs.18,11,31,378/- and difference of returned tax liability the Ld. DR. The difference of the assessed and the returned tax liability works out to Rs.45,08,614/ limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeal before the ITAT vide CBDT Circular (supra) exceptions provided in the said Circular therefore, in term CBDT Circular, therefore, this appeal should not have been filed by the Revenue. Hence same dispute challenged before the ITAT is below the prescribed threshold of Rs.50,00,000/-. Accordingly, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Revenue should not have filed this appeal and therefore, it need to be dismissed as infructuous. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) however submitted effect in the form No. 36 has been wo which is marginally higher than the prescribed threshold limit. Therefore, the objection of the Ld. counsel for the assessee need to be rejected. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the on record. Though in the form No. 36 filed by the Revenue the tax effect has been stated to be Rs.50,79,478/ verification of the computation of the sheet issued along with the the assessed tax effect liability has been worked s.18,56,39,994/- whereas the returned tax liability is and difference of assessed tax liability and returned tax liability of Rs.45,08,614/- has not been disputed by the Ld. DR. The difference of the assessed and the returned tax liability works out to Rs.45,08,614/- which is below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeal before the ITAT vide (supra). The Ld. DR did not refer exceptions provided in the said Circular therefore, in term therefore, this appeal should not have been filed by Hence same is dismissed as infructuous. If the Sameer Kishore Koticha 3 ITA No. 545/Mum/2024 dispute challenged before the ITAT is below the prescribed d. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Revenue should not have filed this appeal and therefore, it need to be dismissed as infructuous. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) however submitted effect in the form No. 36 has been worked out to which is marginally higher than the prescribed threshold limit. Therefore, the objection of the Ld. counsel for the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the on record. Though in the form No. 36 filed by the Rs.50,79,478/- but on verification of the computation of the sheet issued along with the has been worked whereas the returned tax liability is assessed tax liability and has not been disputed by the Ld. DR. The difference of the assessed and the returned tax which is below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeal before the ITAT vide The Ld. DR did not refer to any of the exceptions provided in the said Circular therefore, in terms of the therefore, this appeal should not have been filed by as infructuous. If the Revenue finds that the appeal falls in any of the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular or effect computation , same is found to be then Revenue is it liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of the appeal. The appeal of the Revenue is accordingly disposed off as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/05/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Revenue finds that the appeal falls in any of the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular or due to any apparent mista , same is found to be more the Rs.50,00,000/ then Revenue is it liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of the appeal. The appeal of the Revenue is accordingly indicated above. nced in the open Court on 30/05 Sd/- Sd/ RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Sameer Kishore Koticha 4 ITA No. 545/Mum/2024 Revenue finds that the appeal falls in any of the exceptions provided due to any apparent mistake in the tax more the Rs.50,00,000/-, then Revenue is it liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of the appeal. The appeal of the Revenue is accordingly /05/2024. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai