ITO 11(2)(4), MUMBAI V. LEELA B. PATEL, MUMBAI

ITA 6257/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 625719914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOLI SRINIWAS RAO
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH H,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL(JM) & SHRI R.K. PANDA (AM ) I.T.A.NO.6257/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2005-06) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(2)(4), ROOM NO.443, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. RD, MUMBAI-400 020. VS. MRS. LEELA B. PATIL, B/2, GULMOHAR, D.G. MAHAJANI PATH, SEWRIE, MUMBAI-400 015. PAN: AGEPP6707D APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI GOLI SRINIWAS RAO. RESPONDENT BY SHRI V IMAL PUNMIYA. DATE OF HEARING 14 - 11 - 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 - 11 - 2011 O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL, JM : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 17-05-2010 BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06. 2. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,00,000/ - MADE BY THE A.O. AND HOLDING THAT THE INVESTMENT DI D NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSTT. YR. 2005-06, BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL, EVIDENCES OF FIXED DEPOSITS IN CONTRAVE NTION TO RULE 46A. THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE NEW EVIDENCE PRODUCED. ITA NO. 6257/M/10 MRS. LEELA B. PATIL. 2 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND, IF NECESSARY. 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 MONETA RY LIMIT OF RS.3.00 LAKHS FIXED BY THE CBDT. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DI D NOT DISPUTE ON THE SAID FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. 4. THAT BEING SO AND IN VIEW OF THE RECENT CBDT INS TRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011, DATED 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2011, REPORTED IN (2011) 332 ITR 1 (STAT UTES) AND THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) (2009) 318 ITR 148 (BOM), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE REVISED MONETARY LIMIT IN THE CIRCULA R DATED MAY 15, 2008, WOULD BE APPLICABLE FOR ALL PENDING APPEALS AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (D.K. AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI: 18TH NOVEMBER , 2011. NG: COPY TO : ITA NO. 6257/M/10 MRS. LEELA B. PATIL. 3 1. DEPARTMENT. 2.ASSESSEE. 3 CIT(A)-3,MUMBAI. 4 CIT-11,MUMBAI. 5.DR,H BENCH,MUMBAI. 6.MASTER FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. ITA NO. 6257/M/10 MRS. LEELA B. PATIL. 4 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNA TION 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 14-11-2011 SR.PS/ 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 14-11-2011 SR.PS/ 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/ AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/ 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/ 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER