What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on a CBDT circular revising monetary limits for appeals. The tax effect of the disputed issues did not exceed the revised limit, making the appeal not maintainable.

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order restricting an addition related to development charges. The Revenue's grounds of appeal questioned the assessee's lack of evidence for receipts and claimed the amount was over and above total receipts.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable in light of revised monetary limits prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.

DCIT vs M/S. Alps Liesure Holiday Pvt… | ITAT Ahmedabad 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, HON’BLE

PER PRAMOD KUMAR – VICE PRESIDENT:

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 02.01.2017 arising in the assessment order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the assessment year 2012-13.

[DCIT vs. M/s. Alps Liesure Holiday Pvt. Ltd.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 -

The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as under:-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in restricting the addition made on the issue of debit against Development charges Rs. 75,41,770/-, when the assessee has not furnished any evidences of having shown these receipts/income for tax in earlier years. Further the contention of the assessee, that the evidences were impounded by Income Tax Department, is also not acceptable as complete list was provided to the assessee during the survey action.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that amount of Rs. 42,20,000/- was over and above total receipts of Rs. 97,05,243/- shown by the assessee and no documentary evidences were furnished by the assessee for the claim made by it regarding Rs. 75,41,770/-.”

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 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 [DCIT vs. M/s. Alps Liesure Holiday Pvt. Ltd.] A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 - showing inapplicability of the aforesaid CBDT Circular in any manner.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 29/08/2019

Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (PRAMOD KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Ahmedabad: Dated 29/08/2019 TRUE COPY TANMAY आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file.

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. ALPS LIESURE HOLIDAY PVT. LTD., VADODARA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments