INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (3), NASHIK vs. ZAKIRHUSSAIN M. KHAN, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1562/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 January 2020AY 2010-114 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 tax effect of the grounds raised by the Revenue was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which granted partial relief to the assessee by restricting an addition made by the AO. The assessment year was 2010-11.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. The extent of disallowance from alleged hawala dealers.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(1),Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI

For Respondent: Shri Bharat Deoraj Shegaonkar
Hearing: 22.01.2020Pronounced: 22.01.2020

आदेश / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :

1.

This appeal filed by Revenue is emanating out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Nashik dated 22.07.2019 for A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :-

Assessee is an individual and stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing / trading of steel products. Assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 10.05.2010 declaring total income of Rs.2,14,690/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and consequently the assessment was completed u/s 144(1) r.w.s 147 of the Act vide order dated 25.03.2015 and the total income was determined at Rs.40,17,950/- by making addition of Rs.38,03,260/-.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 22.07.2019 (in appeal No.Nsk/CIT(A)- 1/404/2015-16) granted partial relief to the assessee whereby he upheld the addition of Rs.4,72,282/- and granted partial relief of Rs.33,26,978/-. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds.

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Laws the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in restricting the addition @ 12.5% of purchases from the alleged hawala dealers instead of 100% of disallowance made by AO u/s 37(1) of the Act. 2. The order of the CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.”

3.

On the date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was filed despite service of notice. I therefore proceed to decide the present appeal based on the material available on record and after hearing Ld. D.R.

4.

The perusal of the assessment order reveal that the tax effect on the grounds raised by the Revenue was below the limit prescribed by recent CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dt.08.08.2019. When this was pointed out to Ld. D.R., he fairly admitted that the tax effect on the grounds raised by Revenue is below the limit prescribed by the recent CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dt.08.08.2019 and therefore the appeal be decided accordingly.

5.

I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the material available on record. On perusing the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, I 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. I 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, I am 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. I 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.

6.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 22nd day of January, 2020.

More judgments on Section 37(1)

All 6,995 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →