ACIT 14(1), MUMBAI V. BOBSON INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

ITA 7485/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3153 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Tax effect; Capital expenditure
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 7485/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE ACIT - 14(1), ROOM NO. 202, 2 ND FLOOR, EARNEST HOUSE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021. VS. M/S. BOBSON INDUSTRIES. 3C, BLOCK NO. 4, JAI HIND BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, DR. ATMARAM MERCHANT ROAD, BHULESHWAR, MUMBAI- 400002. PAN- AAEFB0052D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. AKHILENDRA PRATAP YADAV RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING: 23/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23/06/2016 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST ORDER DATED 30/09/2013 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(APPEALS)-25, MUMBAI FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER O N FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERE NCE IN CLOSING STOCK SHOWN IN THE BOOKS VIS--VIS THE STOCK STATEM ENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK, IN VIEW OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIG H COURT 2 ITA NO. 7485/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF DEVGON RICE AND GENERAL MI LLS VS. CIT 263 ITR 391(2003). 2. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT OR HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ACROW INDI A LTD. (2008) 298 ITR (BOM). AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE DIFFERE NT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FIN DING OF THE A.O. THAT THE PREMISE IS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AD WHATEVER RE PAIRS AND MAINTENANCE WORK HAS BEEN DONE IS FOR ENDURING BENE FIT FOR THE ASSESSEE IN FUTURE AD HENCE THE SAME IS IN THE NATU RE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE POINTED OUT THAT THE TAX INVOLVED ON THIS AMOUNT IS BELOW THE MONETARY LIMIT OF RS. 10 LAKHS. AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21 OF 2015, DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, NEW GUIDELINES OF MONETARY LIMIT OF FILING OF APPEALS BY THE DEPART MENT HAS BEEN ISSUED, WHEREBY THE TAX EFFECT FOR FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED AS AMOUNT EXCEEDING RS. 10 LAKHS. WE ALSO FIND THAT TH E ISSUE RAISED IN APPEAL DOES NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS SPECIFIED IN PARA 8 OF THE CIRCULAR. SINCE, IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY CLARIFIED THAT THE INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO ALL THE PENDING APPEALS, THE PRE SENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. WE, THEREFORE, DISMIS S THE SAME IN LIMINE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COUR T ON 23RD JUNE, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( B.R.BASKARAN ) (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 23/06/2016 3 ITA NO. 7485/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 / 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