ITO, BHIWADI vs. ROHITASH, ALWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 336/JPR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 March 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular directed that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lacs should not be filed or should be withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of penalty. The assessee raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed limit.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable when the tax effect is below the monetary limit specified by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 336/JP/2017

Hearing: 26/03/2019Pronounced: 27/03/2019

jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Siddartha Ranka (Adv) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing: 26/03/2019 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 27/03/2019 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 01/02/2017 of ld. CIT(A), Alwar for the A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the only issue involved which is against deleting the penalty of Rs. 12,25,000/- U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

2.

At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has raised an objection of maintainability of the appeal of the Revenue due to the tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lacs as per the CBDT Circle No. 3 of 2018 dated 11th July, 2018. The ld. A/R submitted that in the facts of the present case, tax effect in Revenue’s appeal is stated to be below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs.

3.

The ld. D/R has fairly submitted that the tax effect involved in the Revenue’s appeal is less than 20 lacs which is prescribed threshold limit in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 issued in supersession of its earlier Circular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the demand/ tax effect in the Revenue’s appeal in question is below Rs. 20.00 lacs . Under the powers vested by section. 268A(1) of the I T Act, CBDT has recently issued Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 (F No. 279/Misc.

142/2007-ITJ(Pt) instructing the authorities below that departmental appeal should not be filed before ITAT where the demand/tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lacs. The circular is specifically mentioned to be applicable for all pending appeals.

5.

Subject to some exceptions, it is further directed by CBDT that all the departmental appeals pending before ITAT where the demand/tax effect is not exceeding than 20 lacs should be either withdrawn or not pressed by the departmental representatives.

6.

The present appeal is not covered by any exceptions mentioned in the said CBDT circular. Since the tax demand in dispute in this departmental appeal is below the limit set out by CBDT for the appeal, the appeal of the assessee is not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018. Accordingly the appeal of the Department is dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th March, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼jes'k lh 'kekZ½ (VIJAY PAL RAO) (RAMESH C SHARMA) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 27th March, 2019 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The I.T.O., Ward- Bhiwadi. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Shri Rohitash, Alwar. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण]जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 336/JP/2017) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →