THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SRI RAJKUMAR C (HUF)

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 7(1), PRESENT ADDRESS: ITO, WARD 4(3)(2), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. …APPELLANTS

The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.1381/Bang/2014 for the assessment year 2007-08, raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in law in quashing re-assessment order earlier re-assessment order on the ground that conditions for invoking Section 147 of the Act was not satisfied and subsequently after remand holding that re-assessment order in case of HUF cannot be made as per section 171 of the Act giving contradictory judgment"?

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in holding that as re-assessment

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature not appreciating that assessing authority has the power to disbelieve oral and documentary evidence produced in support of the partition, if the circumstances exist to support such an inference"?

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order is perverse in holding HUF was not existing as on date of passing assessment order when said alleged partition was between husband, wife and minor children which tool adopted by assesse to evade tax under section 171 of the Act"?

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in not appreciating that conduct of assesse that assesse challenged assessment order passed in case of Individual also and now has taken up stand that HUF was not existing when assessment order is passed in case of HUF by contending that HUF was disrupted"?

'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse in nature in deleting addition made on account of AMP expenses ignoring that same has created intangible asset"?

Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the appeal in case the matter falls within the exceptions under the aforesaid Circular dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned