THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD., AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1822/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 November 2021AY 2008-093 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which mandates dismissal of appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) which had quashed reopening proceedings and deleted an addition. The assessee argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per a CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable in light of the low tax effect and the CBDT circular. The validity of reopening proceedings and the deletion of additions were also raised as grounds by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, AR
Hearing: 02/12/2021Pronounced: 06/12/2021

आदेश/O R D E R

PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

1.

The appeal filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2008-09, arise from order of the CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad dated 24.05.2017, in proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

2.

The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as under:-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in quashing the reopening proceedings u/s 148 of the IT Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 10367025/- under section 68 of the Act, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the alleged failure to comply with the principles of natural justice do not make the order a [ACIT vs. Goldfinch Jewellery Ltd.] A.Y. 2008-09 2 nullity but at the best it could be set aside to be done de-novo. Reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Co. vs. CIT 249 ITR 216(SC) and the case of Guduthur Brothers vs. ITO in 40 ITR 298(SC) is made.

4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.”

3.

At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the Ld.AR for the assessee that appeal filed by the Revenue is hit by recently issued CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08/08/2019 revising the previous thresholds pertaining to tax effects. As per aforesaid Circular, all pending appeals filed by Revenue are liable to be dismissed as a measure for reducing litigation where the tax effect does not exceed the prescribed monetary limit which is now revised at Rs.50 Lakhs. In the instant case, the tax effect on the disputed issues raised by the Revenue is stated to be not exceeding Rs.50 lakhs and therefore appeal of the Revenue is required to be dismissed in limine.

4.

The Learned DR for the Revenue fairly admitted the applicability of the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it will be open to the Revenue to seek restoration of its appeal on showing inapplicability of the aforesaid CBDT Circular in any manner.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 06/12/2021

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →