INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, ICHALKRANJI vs. DADA APPA PATIL HUF, KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2415/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 February 2020AY 2009-103 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 held that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable on account of low tax effect, as the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 50 lakhs and no exceptions were demonstrated. The grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2009-10. The assessee's representative argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT due to low tax effect in light of a CBDT circular. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue concerned undisclosed investment, estimation of agricultural income, admission of additional evidence, and addition on account of interest on FDRs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte
For Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Hearing: 21.02.2020Pronounced: 21.02.2020

आदेश / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue is emanating out of the order of 1. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) – 2, Kolhapur dated 02.08. for the assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as under :

“1. Based on the facts and keeping in accordance with law, the CIT(A)-2 Kolhapur has erred in deleting the point related to undisclosed investment in land asset. The appellant has failed to offer the said undisclosed investment in land for taxation even after admitting the same in a statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act, 1961 before investigation wing.

2. On the facts and in law, the CIT(A)-2 Kolhapur erred in estimating agricultural income which should have been based on actual land under cultivation and substantive proof

obtained from Talathi Office. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal

3. On the facts and in law, the CIT (A)-2, Kolhapur, erred in admitting the production of additional evidence in appeal, in the form of mere combined Cash flow statement, when, assessee has duly maintained Cash book, Receipt & Payment account and he duly been drawn balance sheet.

4. On the facts and in law, addition made on account of interest on accrued basis on FDR(s) ought to have been confirmed by the CIT (A)-2, Kolhapur.

5. The CIT (A)-2, Kolhapur erred in not providing opportunity to the A.O. vide admitting the evidence in the form of combined cash flow statement, which was not produced during the course of assessment proceedings in the light of provisions of rule 46A of Income Tax Rule, 1962.”

3.

Before us, at the outset, Ld.A.R. submitted that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable on account of low tax effect in view of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by CBDT and therefore, the appeal of the Revenue be dismissed. Ld.D.R. did not object to the aforesaid contention made by the Ld.A.R. but however supported the order of lower authorities.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusing the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, we find that Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) in respect of the relief given by him. As per the recent announcement of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 08.08.2019 (Circular No. 17 of 2019), no Department appeals are to be filed against relief given by ld. CIT(A) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal unless the tax effect, excluding interest, exceeds Rs.50 lakhs and it further states that the instructions will apply retrospectively to the pending appeals also.

We find that in the present case the tax effect involved is less than Rs.50 lakhs. In the absence of any material placed on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the issue in the present appeal is covered by exceptions provided in para 10 of the aforesaid CBDT Circular, We are of the view that the monetary limit prescribed by the instructions of the aforesaid CBDT Circular would be applicable to the present appeal of the Department. We therefore hold the present appeal of Revenue to be not maintainable on account of low tax effect. However, in case there is any error in the computation of the tax effect involved or if for any reason, the aforesaid CBDT Circular is not applicable, it would be open to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal. Thus, the grounds of the Revenue are dismissed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 21st day of February, 2020.

More judgments on Section 131

All 4,706 judgments and leading authorities on Section 131 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →