The DCIT, CC-40, Mumbai v. Sarita Davare
[Citation -2016-LL-0929-27]

Citation 2016-LL-0929-27
Appellant Name The DCIT, CC-40, Mumbai
Respondent Name Sarita Davare
Court ITAT-Mumbai
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 29/09/2016
Assessment Year 2007-08
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags undisclosed income • tax effect
Bot Summary: Vijay Kothari Date of Hearing: 29/09/2016 Date of Pronouncement: 29/09/2016 ORDER PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 27/12/2013 passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals)-38, Mumbai for the assessment year 2007-08. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that only undisclosed income and undisclosed assets detected during search could be brought to tax. 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by in holding that the scope of Section 153A is limited to assessing only income based on the incriminating documents found during search, thereby denying revenue the opportunity of taxing other escaped income, that comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer. 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai bench in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd., whereas the decision in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd has been further contested in appeal and the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court is still pending. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in this case is below Rs.10,00,000/- Hence, as per the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015, the present appeal is not maintainable. The Ld. DR fairly admitted that the tax effect in department s appeal is below Rs.10 Lakhs, We find that the 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 in the Circular aforesaid that the instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals; the present appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA No. 1788/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08 DCIT C C-40, Dr. Sarita Davare, Room No. 653, 6th Floor, Flat No. 501, Swapna Apartment, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, B-Road No. 1, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai- 400 020. Vs. Mumbai- 400 057. PAN- AHVPD8632R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Captain Pradeep Arya Respondent by : Shri. Vijay Kothari Date of Hearing: 29/09/2016 Date of Pronouncement: 29/09/2016 ORDER PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by revenue against order dated 27/12/2013 passed by Ld CIT(Appeals)-38, Mumbai for assessment year 2007-08. 2. revenue has challenged impugned order on following effective grounds:- 1. "On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in deleting addition made on account of capitalized amount of Rs.16,28,432/-, by not considering and deciding issue on merits". 2 ITA No. 1788/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08 2. "On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of assessee by holding that only undisclosed income and undisclosed assets "detected during search" could be brought to tax". 3 "On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of assessee by in holding that scope of Section 153A is limited to assessing only income based on incriminating documents found during search, thereby denying revenue opportunity of taxing other escaped income, that comes to notice of Assessing Officer". 4 "On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of assessee placing reliance on decision of jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai bench (Special Bench) in case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (137 ITD 287), whereas decision in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd has been further contested in appeal and decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court is still pending". 3. At outset, Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that tax effect in this case is below Rs.10,00,000/- Hence, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015, present appeal is not maintainable. 4. Ld. DR fairly admitted that tax effect in department s appeal is below Rs.10 Lakhs, We find that issue raised in appeal does not fall under any of exceptions specified in para 8 of Circular. Since, it has been specifically clarified in Circular aforesaid that instruction will apply retrospectively to all pending appeals; present appeal filed by revenue is not maintainable. We, therefore, dismiss same in limine. 3 ITA No. 1788/MUM/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Order pronounced in open court on 29th September, 2016 Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.BASKARAN) (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 29/09/2016 Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ,ITAT, Mumbai Pramila DCIT, CC-40, Mumbai v. Sarita Davare
Report Error