Rajesh P. Wadhwa, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax

This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against order dated 04.03.2013, passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-22, for the quantum of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, for the A.Y. 2007-08, on the following grounds:-

"1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6,91,178/- on account of Gross profit without appreciating that the assessee had just debited the expenses but not shown any supporting evidence to justify the same and also not maintained P&L account to evidence the business venture profits and thus the assessee failed to discharge his duty thereby the AO had correctly invoked the provisions of section 145 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2 ITA No. 4173/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,04,404/- on account of variation of Gross profit percentage as per the MOU ignoring the facts that there is a difference in the profit sharing ratio shown by the assessee which cannot be accepted as genuine."

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect of the disputed addition is only Rs.2,66,793/-, which is less than rupees three lakhs [in view of CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 09.02.2011]. He has also filed the working of the tax effect. He further submitted that in light of series of Hon'ble Bombay High Court decisions, it is a consistent view that the CBDT instruction prescribing monitory limit for filing of appeal by the department is mandatory and is also applicable for pending appeals also. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of Madhukar Inamdar (HUF) 318 ITR 149 [Bom]; CIT vs. Virendra & Co. [(2012) 77 DTR 210 (Bom).

3. The Ld. DR agreed that a tax effect is less than 3 lakhs.

4. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts that tax effect is less than 3 lakhs therefore, in view of the CBDT instruction no. 3 (supra), the appeal of the department is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 10th day of April, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 10 .04.2015 *Srivastava 3 ITA No. 4173/Mum/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The CIT(A) Concerned, Mumbai The DR "D" Bench //True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.