ITO 23(1)(1), MUMBAI V. KANHAIA R KOMU, MUMBAI

ITA 6784/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3195 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN SHENOY
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (J M) ITA NO. 6784/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE ITO - 23 (1 ), 1 ST FLOOR, ROOM NO. 101, C-10, B.K.C, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI- 400 051. VS. SHRI. KANHAIA R. KOMU., FLAT NO. 1, 1 ST FLOOR, GOODWILL APT., STATION ROAD, VIKHROLI (E), MUMBAI- 400 083 PAN- AAHPK4287E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. ARUN SHENOY RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF H EARING: 06/09 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06/09/2016 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST ORDER DATED 19/09/2013 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(APPEALS)-36, MUMBAI FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WHEREBY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 11.11.2009 PASSED UN DER SECTION 143(3)OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER O N FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSE SSEE OF RS. 2 ITA NO. 6784/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 9,40,000/- AFTER ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE IN CONTRA VENTION OF RULE 46A OF THE I. TAX RULES, 1962. (II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 10,38,718/- AFTER ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE IN CONTR AVENTION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 3. CASE CALLED FOR HEARING, HOWEVER, NEITHER THE R ESPONDENT NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FAIRLY POINTED OUT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS BELOW RS.10,00,000/- AND AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21 OF 2015, DATED 10/12/2015, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN APPEAL DOES NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS SPECIFIED IN PARA 8 OF THE CIRCULAR. SIN CE, IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY CLARIFIED IN THE CIRCULAR AFORESAID THAT THE INSTRU CTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO ALL THE PENDING APPEALS; THE PRESENT APPEAL FILE D BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE SAME IN LIMINE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COUR T ON 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( G.S.PANNU ) (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 06/09/2016 3 ITA NO. 6784/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. !' , $ !'% , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. &' ( / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI PRAMILA