ITO-28(2)(1), MUMBAI V. MUKESH BALDEVRAJ BAJAJ, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 3844/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2007-08. The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, which had allowed the assessee's appeal, arguing that the CIT(A) did not follow the ITAT's earlier directions and misapplied the provisions of section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Departmental Representative indicated that the tax effect was below the threshold for filing an appeal, leading to the withdrawal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24012 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.R. MAKWANA
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 3844/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2007-08 ITO-28(2)(1), Room No. 326, 3rd floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi-400703. Vs. Mukesh Baldevraj Bajaj, Flat No. A-301, Neel Siddhi Tower, Plot No. 195, Sector-12, Vashi-400703. PAN NO. AEMPB 1761 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Mr. R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 14/10/2024 Date of pronouncement : 14/10/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2007-08, raising following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC (Ld.CIT(A)) is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by not following the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT contained in its order dated 02.03.2012. 2. Whether on law, the Ld. NFAC (Ld.CIT(A)) erred in allowing appeal of assessee holding that provision of section 41(1) are not applicable ignoring the fact that the Hon'ble ITAT and the CIT(A) had already held/adm that provisions of section 41(1) are not applicable to the facts of the case and the Ld.CIT(A) failed to decide the • issue on the line whether advance received towards booking by the various persons in the earlier year and as reflected in balance sh 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of assessee by not following the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT by not bringing on record balance sheet of earl documentary evidences of the amount received and part payment towards discharging of liabilities claimed by the assessee. 4. The Appellant submits that the impugned order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the Ld. and the addition made by the assessing officer is liable to be upheld. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than the threshold amount of Rs.60 lakhs filing appeal before the ITAT vide CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which applies to the pending appeals also and therefore, he submitted that appeal of the Department might be treated as withdrawn. 3. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The tax effect involved in the present appeal is Rs.53,42,414/ Rs.60 lakhs prescribed for filing appea 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, a is dismissed as withdrawn. However, in case the appeals falls under assessee by not following the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT contained in its order dated 02.03.2012. the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC (Ld.CIT(A)) erred in allowing appeal of assessee holding that provision of section 41(1) are not applicable ignoring the fact that the Hon'ble ITAT and the CIT(A) had already held/adm that provisions of section 41(1) are not applicable to the facts of the case and the Ld.CIT(A) failed to decide the • issue on the line whether advance received towards booking by the various persons in the earlier year and as reflected in balance sheet are genuine or not. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of assessee by not following the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT by not bringing on record balance sheet of earlier years of proprietary concern duly supported by documentary evidences of the amount received and part payment towards discharging of liabilities claimed by the assessee. 4. The Appellant submits that the impugned order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the Ld. NFAC, is bad-in-law and it is deserved to be quashed and the addition made by the assessing officer is liable to be upheld. At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than amount of Rs.60 lakhs, which has been prescribed for filing appeal before the ITAT vide CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated which applies to the pending appeals also and he submitted that appeal of the Department might be withdrawn. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The tax effect involved in the present appeal is Rs.53,42,414/-, which is below the threshold limit of Rs.60 lakhs prescribed for filing appeal as per CBDT Circular No 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn. However, in case the appeals falls under Mukesh Baldevraj Bajaj 2 ITA No. 3844/MUM/2023 assessee by not following the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT contained the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC (Ld.CIT(A)) erred in allowing appeal of assessee holding that provision of section 41(1) are not applicable ignoring the fact that the Hon'ble ITAT and the CIT(A) had already held/admitted that provisions of section 41(1) are not applicable to the facts of the case and the Ld.CIT(A) failed to decide the • issue on the line whether advance received towards booking by the various persons in the earlier 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of assessee by not following the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT by not bringing on record ier years of proprietary concern duly supported by documentary evidences of the amount received and part payment 4. The Appellant submits that the impugned order dated 30.08.2023 law and it is deserved to be quashed and the addition made by the assessing officer is liable to be upheld. At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than which has been prescribed for filing appeal before the ITAT vide CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated which applies to the pending appeals also and he submitted that appeal of the Department might be We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The tax effect involved in the present which is below the threshold limit of l as per CBDT Circular No. ccordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn. However, in case the appeals falls under any of the exceptions provided (supra), the Revenue is a way of a Miscellaneous Application. 4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 14/10/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// any of the exceptions provided in para 3 of the said Circular , the Revenue is at liberty for seeking recall of the appeal by Miscellaneous Application. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. nounced in the open Court on 14/10/2024. Sd/- Sd/ (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Mukesh Baldevraj Bajaj 3 ITA No. 3844/MUM/2023 para 3 of the said Circular seeking recall of the appeal by In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. /10/2024. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "