ITO WD 3(1), MUMBAI V. BOMBAY MINERALS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6339/MUM/2010

AI Insights

The case involves the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-22, Mumbai as the appellant and Bombay Minerals Ltd. as the respondent. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) which had deleted several additions made by the Assessing Officer under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2001-02. The additions pertained to delayed payments of employees' contributions to provident fund and ESI, disallowances of business expenses, and interest expenses attributed to interest-free advances to sister concerns. The CIT (Appeals) had deleted these additions based on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. The tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds of low tax effect, adhering to the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26653 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 14 year(s) 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2010
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (319 ITR 306)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANG SHAH
• Assessee Lawyers: PARESH DESHPANDE
• Keywords: Set aside; Business expenditure; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 43B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6339/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2001-02) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax CC-22 Room No. 403, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. v/s. बनाम Bombay Minerals Ltd. Dwaraka Highway, Jam- Khambhalia. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAACB8993D Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Hemang Shah Respondent by : Smt. Paresh Deshpande – Sr. A.R. Date of Hearing 07.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 10. 10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the Order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the ‘Act’ in short] vide DIN & Order No. CIT(A)/Jam/33/07-08/445 Dated 28.06.2010 for the Assessment Year 2001-02. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: a. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,08,886/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, 1961 being the delayed payment of employees contribution in provident fund before the due date by wrongly applying the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (319 ITR 306) b. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,65,004/-, which is ITA No.6339/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2001-02) Bombay Minerals Ltd. Page 2 of 3 disallowable u/s 43B of the Act as these amounts were not paid even before the due date of filing of return of income. c. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,536/- being the payments of ESI which were not paid within due date by wrongly applying the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (319 ITR 306) d. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,71,540/- being the amount disallowed out of various business expenses without appreciating the AO's contention that several of the vouchers were without name of the recipient, signature and nature of transaction mentioned therein. e. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,75,311/-being the amount disallowed out of interest expenses, as the same was attributable to interest-free advance given to sister concerns. 2. The appellant craves to leave to add, to amend and/or alter any of the grounds of appeal, if need be. 3. The appellant, therefore, prays that on the grounds stated above, the order of CIT(A) Jamnagar may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. At the outset, it is noticed that the assessee has submitted an application dated 01.10.2024 stating that the tax effect in the appeal is only Rs.15,52,843/- which is below the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT as per circular no. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, wherein, the monetary limit for filing of appeal by the revenue before the tribunal has been specified at Rs.60,00,000/-. 3.1. The appeal is hereby dismissed on account of low tax effect. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.10.2024. Sd/- Sd/- BEENA PILLAI RENU JAUHRI (न्यातयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No.6339/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2001-02) Bombay Minerals Ltd. Page 3 of 3 Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai ददनाुंक/Date. 10.10.2024 अदनक ेत द ुंह राजपूत/स्टेनो आदेश की प्रतितलतप अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त / CIT 4. दिभागीय प्रदतदनदध, आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. त्यादपत प्रदत //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अतधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai "