THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. HARIOM PROTIENS PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below Rs. 20 lakhs. Following CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2018, which prohibits appeals with a tax effect below this threshold, the appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed an order by the CIT(A) which deleted a disallowance of Rs. 6,44,464/-. The disallowance was related to non-compliance with TDS provisions on interest payments.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT instructions, despite the merits of the disallowance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of ld.CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad dated 5.10.2017 passed for the Asstt.Year 2012-13.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notice of hearing was sent to the assessee at the address mentioned in Form No.36. However, the same was returned by the postal authorities with the remark “not known”. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal ex parte qua assessee-respondent.
Revenue has raised four grounds in appeal. However, sole issue involved in all these is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance of Rs.6,44,464/- with the aid of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act for non-compliance of section 194A/194C on the payment of interest paid to certain parties.
We have gone through orders of the Revenue authorities. When we noticed from the order that quantum of disputed amount is Rs.6,44,464/- and 2 the tax effect thereon would be less than Rs.20 lakhs, we put a query to the ld.DR as the applicability of recent Instruction No.3 of 2018 dated 11.8.2018 of the CBDT, by which the CBDT has prohibited the Revenue in filing appeal before the Tribunal where tax effect is below Rs.20 lakhs. The ld.DR has not disputed applicability of above circular and the tax effect on the disputed amount is below Rs.20 lakhs. He has also not pointed out whether the case of the Revenue fall within the ambit of exceptions provided in the Circular or not. Thus, keeping in view the above CBDT circular, which is applicable to pending appeals also, and provisions of section 268A of the Income Tax Act, we are of the view that the appeal of the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is observed that in case on re-verification at the end of the AO it comes to the notice that the tax effect is more or Revenue’s case falls within the ambit of exceptions provided in the Circular, then the Department will be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall of this order. Such application should be filed within the time period prescribed in the Act.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect. Order pronounced in the Court on 30th July, 2019 at Ahmedabad.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026