DCIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI v. PROMINENT EXIM, P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2176/MUM/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 217619914 RSA 2010
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2176/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant DCIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI
Respondent PROMINENT EXIM, P.LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-02-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 28-02-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 18-03-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGH AVAN (JM) ITA NO. 2176/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2005-06 THE DCIT 8(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 VS. M/S. PROMINENT EXIM PVT. LTD . 8 NEW TEJPAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE KURLA ANDHERI ROAD SAKI NAKA ANDHERI(E) MUMBAI-400 072 PAN-AABCP 8858M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI NEERAJ BANSAL RESPONDENT BY: NONE O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-17 FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE READ AS FOLLOWS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS. 5 67 838/- ON ACCOUNT OF MOTOR VEHICLE WHICH WAS IMPORTED IN CONTRAVENTION O F THE PROVISIONS OF CUSTOMS ACT 1962 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES RELATING TO OFFENC E PROHIBITED BY LAW AS PER EXPLANATION TO SEC. 37(1) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. ITA NO. 2176/M/2010 2 3. THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE REVENUE IS LESS THAN THE LIMIT OF RS. 2 LACS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE C BDT AND THIS POSITION APPARENT FROM THE QUANTUM OF RELIEF DISPUTED IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED EVEN BY THE LEARNED D .R. IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SATISH CHANDRA 10 SOT 383 THE APPEAL FIL ED BY THE REVENUE INVOLVING TAX EFFECT OF RS. 2 LACS WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL TREATING THE SAME TO BE NOT MAINTAINABLE BEING CONTRARY TO T HE BOARD CIRCULAR. TO THE SIMILAR EFFECT IS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CAMCO COLOUR CO. 254 ITR 565 WHERE IN IT WAS HELD THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENU E FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT BEING LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIM IT AS PRESCRIBED IN BOARD CIRCULAR THE SAME IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. RESPE CTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WE DISMISS THIS APPE AL OF THE REVENUE TREATING THE SAME TO BE NOT MAINTAINABLE. 3. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 SD/- SD/- (T. R. SOOD) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY 2011 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR C BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T MUMBAI ITA NO. 2176/M/2010 3 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 17 . 02 .201 1 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 17 .02.2011 ____ __ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: _________ ______ 9. 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______