Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai

Jitendra M Chitroda Prop. M/S. Vision ... vs Department Of Income Tax

            IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                 MUMBAI BENCHES "I", MUMBAI

            BEFORE SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL (J.M.)
                 AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA (A.M.)

                        ITA No. 228/Mum/2010
                       Assessment Year : 2003-04

Income Tax Officer - Ward                 Shri Jitendra M.,
17(2)(2),                                 Chitroda Prop. M/s Vision
Room No. 212,                             Choice,
Piramal Chamber,                   Vs.    24/12 Krishna Kunj,
Lalbaug,                                  Behind Arora Cinema,
Mumbai - 400 012.                         King Circle,
                                          Mumbai- 400 019.
                                          PAN :AAAPC4502F
         (Appellant)                                (Respondent)

                       Revenue by : Shri S.V. Krishnamoorty
                       Assessee by : Shri Repal Tralshawala

                      Date of hearing            05-11-2012
                  Date of pronouncement          09-11-2012

                                ORDER

PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, J.M.

This appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 29-10-2009 passed by the ld. CIT (A)- 29, Mumbai for the assessment year 2003-04 taking following ground of appeal:-

"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,20,013/- made on account of internet charges without appreciating the fact that assessee has neither reconciled the figure of internet charges nor offered for taxation."

2. At the time of hearing it was observed that the tax effect on the disputed amount of Rs. 7,20,013/- in the appeal filed by the Revenue is Rs. 2,26,804/- which is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 3 lacs fixed by the CBDT vide Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 9-2-2011 reported in (2011) 332 ITR 1 (Statutes). The ld. D.R. did not dispute on the said factual matrix of the case.

3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee while relying on the CBDT Instruction (supra) also relied on the following decisions:-

1. CIT vs. Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) 318 ITR 149(Bom)

2. CIT vs. Pithwa Engg. Works [2005] 276 ITR 519 (Bom)

3. CIT vs. Camco Colour Co. [2002] 254 ITR 565 (Bom)

4. CIT vs. Virendra & Co. (Bom), judgment dated 20-7-2012.

5. CIT vs. Vijaya Kavekar (Bom), judgment dated 29-7-2011.

6. CIT vs. Varsha Dilip Kohle (Bom), order dated 5-3-2012

7. CIT vs. Satischandra D. Khatod (HUF) (Guj), judgment dated 24-8-2012.

8. ITO vs. Shree Swastik Developers (Mum) in ITA No. 3568/M/2010, A.Y. 2004-05, order dated 7-9-2011.

9. ITO vs. Kinjal Developers (Mum) in ITA No. 1695/M/2010, A.Y. 2006-07, order dated 22-7-2011.

4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the tax effect on the disputed amount of Rs. 7,20,013/- is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 3 lacs fixed by the CBDT (supra).

5. In CIT vs. Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) (2009) 318 ITR 148 (Bom) it has been held that the revised monetary limit in the Circular dated May 15, 2008 would be applicable for all pending appeals.

6. Recently the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Varsha Dilip Kolhe in Tax Appeal No. 7 of 2010 dtd. 5-3-2012 after considering the Instruction No. 3/2011 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surya Herbal Ltd. (supra) has held as under:-

"3...........Therefore, the contention of Mr. Sharma that the circular does not apply to the pending cases is rejected.

....... ....... ......

5. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case and in our view this appeal does not involve any cascading effect and it is not pointed to us that several appeals arise the point which is involved in this appeal."

7. Respectfully following the above decisions, wherein it has been consistently held that the CBDT Instruction No. 03/2011 dtd. 9-2-2011 would apply even to pending appeals and the ld. D.R., at this stage, was unable to point out any cascading effect, we are of the view that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal and accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

8. In the result, the Revenue's appeal stands dismissed.

     Order pronounced on 9-11-2012




              Sd/-                                Sd/-
        (N.K. BILLAIYA)                 (DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL)
     ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                      JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated 9-11-2012.

RK

Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent

3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 29 Mumbai

4. Commissioner of Income Tax - 17, Mumbai

5. Departmental Representative, Bench 'I', Mumbai //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI