Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI MAHAVIR PRADAD
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Baroda (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 20.10.2014 arising in the assessment order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the assessment year 2011-12.
CO. No. 01/Ahd/2019 [DCIT vs.Shri Anirudh P. Sethi] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 -
The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as under:-
“1. Whether in law and on facts the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse in allowing relief of Rs. 1,56,86,360/- out of total addition amounting to Rs. 2,30,25,588/- by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pradeep Shantilal Patel [2014] 42 taxmann.com 2(Guj.) and Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Dineshbhai Dhansukhlal MIthaiwala vs. ITO [2014] 49 taxmann.com 583 when the ratio of the decision of these cases is not applicable to facts of this case. 1(a) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has misdirected himself in holding that providing merely e-mail ID is sufficient to grant relief to the assessee when such e- mail ID do not establish any verifiable identify and they are not reliable evidences. 1(b) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has cast upon A.O. an imposition task of verifying the genuineness of more than 700 e-mail ID by stating that since AO has not made such verifications addition should be deleted. 1(c) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in shifting the burden on AO when the primary onus of providing basic information like Phone Nos./PAN and postal addresses were not provided by the assessee at any stage. 1(d) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in ignoring that in the nature of profession of consultancy as admitted by the assessee, there cannot be any expenditure to the extent of 80% which the ld. CIT(A) has allowed on presumption basis. 1(e) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that assessee has deposited cash for refund in 790 cases when no detail of any account where such deposit was made furnished before the AO or before the Ld. CIT(A).
2. Whether Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the amount of Rs. 14,94,429/- without appreciating the fact that no evidence has been produced by the assessee in respect of expenditure claimed.”
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. It is inter alia noticed that the CBDT vide Instruction No. F. No. 279/Misc/M- 93/2018-ITJ dt. 20/08/2019 has observed that Circular No.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 relating to enhancement of monetary limits is also applicable to all pending appeals. As per aforesaid Circular read CO. No. 01/Ahd/2019 [DCIT vs.Shri Anirudh P. Sethi] A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 - with instructions, 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.
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.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Now we turn to the cross objection filed on behalf of the assessee in the Revenue appeal. At the time of hearing the Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee could not place any serious argument to persuade us for interfering with the order of the CIT(A).
In the result, Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 03/09/2019