INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(2), PUNE vs. PRADEEP LAXMANRAO DHUMAL, PUNE

ITA 2470/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 February 2020AY 2010-113 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 was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lakhs and no exceptions were demonstrated. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order that restricted an addition on account of bogus purchases. The assessee argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT on account of low tax effect, considering CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned, but relates to additions on account of bogus purchases.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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.

CIT v. La Medica
117 Taxmann 628 · 2001 · HC
150 citing
Indian Woollen Carpet Factory v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
125 Taxmann 763 · 2002 · HC
23 citing
Kaveri Rice Mills v. CIT
157 Taxmann 376 · 2006 · HC
21 citing

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 :

This appeal filed by the Revenue is emanating out of the order of 1. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) – 4, Pune dated 26.05.2017 for the assessment year 2010-11.

The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as under :

“1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases to Rs6,62,408/( i.em12.5% of the Hawala purchases of Rs 52,99,262/-) instead of upholding the entire addition of Rs 52,99,262/- contrary to the decision of Hon'ble High court of Delhi of La Medica (117 Taxman 628),Hon'ble High court of Allahabad in the case of Kaveri Rice Mill (157 Taxman 376 ) and Hon'ble High court of Rajasthan in the case of Indian Wollen Carpet Factory (125 Taxman 763 ).

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not considering facts that goods claimed to have been purchased from hawala parties were not at all received by the assessee, not traded by him or consumed by him.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT (A) has erred in holding that 12.5% of the purchases can be added as income whereas Sales Tax Action found the transaction bogus without actual sale/delivery of goods, on enquiries found sellers non-existent at the given address, assessee failed to file confirmation, failed to produce the suppliers and, letters issued to sellers have come back un-served, which proved that the whole purchases were not genuine. 4 For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing officer be restored”.

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.

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.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 21st day of February, 2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →