ITO 12(3)(2), MUMBAI V. NEELAM INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

ITA 8307/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 830719914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR SANTOSH MANKOSKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AASIFA KHAN
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI B BENCH , , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SAKTIJIT DEY ,JUDICIAL MEMBER /. ITA NO. 8307 /MUM/201 0 , / ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2006 - 07 INCOME TAX OFFIER - 12(3)(2) ROOM NO.114, 1 ST FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI - 400 020. VS M/S. NEELAM INDUSTRIES 607, EMBASSY CENTRE NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI - 400 021. PAN: AACFN 6263 G ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : MS. AASIFA KHAN / REVENUE BY : DR. SANTOSH MANKOSKAR / DATE OF HEARING : 24 - 09 - 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 - 09 - 2015 , 1961 254 ( 1 ) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT. 3.9.2010 OF CIT(A) - 23, MUMBAI THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO), HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. N THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTION OF THE A. O. IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT VALID AND ERRED IN DELETING THE 10% OF DISALLOWANCE OF PURC HASES AMOUNTING TO RS.5,75,839/ - . 1A. WHILE DOING SO THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED STOCK REGISTERS WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145 OF THE I.T. ACT. 2 . ON THE FA CTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING 25% OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,94,418/ - MADE BY THE A.O. WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THE SAID EXPENSES HAD NOT BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR T HE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS IN VIEW OF THE NON MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 3 . THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ON THE ABOVE GROUND(S) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4 . THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING,IT WAS FOUND THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO IS BELOW THE MONETARY LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT.WHEN THE FACT W AS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE DR,HE LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH. WE FIND THAT WHILE FILING THE APPEAL THE AO HAS NOT MENTIONED THE FACT THAT THE MATTER IS COVERED BY THE EXCEPTIONS CARVED OUT BY THE BOARD FOR FILING THE APPEALS WHERE T HE TAX EFFECT WAS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT.THUS,IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE MATTER IS BELOW THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT, THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO FOR LOW TAX EFFECT. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED. ITA/ 8 307 /M/11NEELAM ,AY. 0 6 - 07 2 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER,2015. 24 TH 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( /SHAKTIJIT DEY) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT / MUMBAI, /DATE: 24 .0 9 .2015 . . . JV. SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI.