IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.7549/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) INCOME TAX OFFICER -17(2)(3), 210, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI-400 012. / VS. SMT. SABANA MOHD. AHMED RANGARI BUILDING NO.9, ROOM NO.4, R.A. KIDWAI NAGAR, WADALA, MUMBAI-400 031. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AFAPR 105HC ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.A. DHYANI / RESPONDENT BY : MS. LOPA SHAH / DATE OF HEARING : 28/01/2016 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/01/2016 $% / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2011 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-29, MUMBAI (HE REINAFTER CALLED AS THE CIT(A) ) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE REVENUE H AS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 2 ITA NO.7549/MUM/2011 ITO VS SMT. SABANA MOHD. AHMED RANGARI 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF TO BEN EFICIARY OF DUBIOUS TRANSACTION I.E. ASSESSEES ON THE BASE FACT THAT I TAT, MUMBAI HAS QUANTIFIED INCOME OF M/S GOLDSTAR FINVEST PVT. LTD FOR A.Y.200 -03 AT 0.15% OF VARIOUS DUBIOUS TRANSACTION AS AN ENTRY PROVIDER WAS EXAMIN ED IN THE CASE OF M/S GOLDSTAR (PVT) LTD. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPLYING RULE 46A OF TH E IT RULES 1962 FOR CROSS EXAMINE OF THE SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED CONSIDERING THE DEDUCTION U/S5 4F IS ALLOWABLE. 2 . AT THE OUTSET THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS BELOW RS.10.00 LAKHS AND FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT IN VIEW OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015, DATED 10.12.2015 BROUGHT OUT BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FI NANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THE APPEAL WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND BE DISMISSED. T HE LD. DR ALSO AGREED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3 ITA NO.7549/MUM/2011 ITO VS SMT. SABANA MOHD. AHMED RANGARI WE FIND FROM THE RECORDS BEFORE US THAT THE TAX INV OLVED IN THE DISPUTED ISSUE IS BELOW RS.10 LACS AND THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE CIRC ULAR NO 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 NO APPEALS SHOULD BE FILED BY THE RE VENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS TAX EFFECT OF RS. 10.00 LACS OR LESS AND THIS CIRCULAR IS ALSO APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY TO ALL PENDING APPEALS. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT THE SAID CBDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA) IS AS UNDER:- THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO PEN DING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN HIGH COURTS/TRIBUNALS. PENDI NG APPEALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED TAX LIMITS IN PARA 3 ABOVE MAY BE WITHDRA WN/NOT PRESSED. APPEALS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE IN STRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. 4. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE, IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28TH JANUARY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (CN PRASAD) (RAJESH KUMAR) &' $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) MUMBAI; *$ DATED :28.01.2016 PS. ASHWINI GAJAKOSH 4 ITA NO.7549/MUM/2011 ITO VS SMT. SABANA MOHD. AHMED RANGARI / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. + ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. + / CIT - CONCERNED 5. ./0 ''12 , 12# , ( ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 045 6 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / !'# (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) #$ %, ( ) / ITAT, MUMBAI.