CBDT monetary limit and explained deposits sustained relief for the assessee, with the revenue appeal treated as not maintainable.

House rent allowance exemption under section 10(13A) was supported by rent receipts and the landlord's confirmation, so the disallowance was deleted. Bank deposits were also found explained through cash flow material, family receipts, and salary credits of the assessee's wife, so the addition as unexplained income was deleted. The revenue appeal was below the CBDT monetary limit and no exception was shown, so the appeal was treated as not maintainable. The deletions made by the first appellate authority were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the deletion of disallowance of house rent allowance claimed under section 10(13A) was justified; (ii) whether the deletion of addition relating to deposits in the bank account as unexplained income was justified; (iii) whether the revenue appeal was maintainable in view of the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular.

Issue (i): Whether the deletion of disallowance of house rent allowance claimed under section 10(13A) was justified.

Analysis: The rent payment of Rs. 54,000 for 10 months was supported by rent receipts, and the landlord's statement recorded by the Assessing Officer also confirmed receipt of the same amount. The claim of exemption under section 10(13A) was therefore supported by the material on record.

Conclusion: The deletion of the disallowance on account of house rent allowance was upheld and was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the deletion of addition relating to deposits in the bank account as unexplained income was justified.

Analysis: The cash flow statement and supporting material showed that the deposits were explained through receipts from family members and salary credits of the assessee's wife, who was also an income-tax assessee. The appellate authority verified the credit entries and found them duly explained on the basis of the bank records and annexures.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition for unexplained bank deposits was upheld and was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the revenue appeal was maintainable in view of the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular.

Analysis: The tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circulars issued by the CBDT were treated as binding on the income-tax authorities under section 119, and no acceptable exception to the monetary limit was established on the record.

Conclusion: The revenue appeal was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The additions deleted by the first appellate authority were sustained, and the revenue's challenge was rejected on the ground of low tax effect.

Ratio Decidendi: CBDT instructions prescribing monetary limits for departmental appeals are binding on income-tax authorities under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and appeals below the prescribed tax effect should not be pursued absent a proved exception.

---