Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :
This appeal filed by the Revenue is emanating out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) – 1, Aurangabad dated 28.03.2017 for A.Y. 2009-10.
The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :-
In this case a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Smt. Vandana Ganapati Morge (i.e., Sharda Group of cases), wherein it was found that assessee i.e., Late Smt. Sumanbai Gangadhar Kshirasagar had sold land admeasuring 1.90R
at Taroda, Nanded on 20.02.2009 for a consideration of Rs.30.63
lakhs and further found that Smt. Vandana Ganapati Morge paid “On
Money” amounting to Rs.54,75,810/- to the assessee. On verification,
it is noticed that assessee did not file any return of income for A.Y.
2009-10. Accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and
served on assessee. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) and u/s 133(6)
were also issued. Consequently, AO completed the assessment u/s
144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 14.03.2016 assessing the total income at
Rs.85,38,810/- by making addition on account of long term capital
gains. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter
before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 28.03.2017 (in appeal
No.ABD/C(T(A)-1/135/2016-17) allowed the appeal of assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before
us and has raised the following grounds :
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in accepting the fact that an omission to serve or any defect in the service of notices provided by procedural provisions does not efface or erase the liability to pay tax where such liability is created by distinct substantive provisions [charging sections}. 2. On the facts and in the .circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the lack for notice does not amount to the revenue authority having had no jurisdiction to assess. An assessment proceeding does not cease to be a proceeding under the Act merely by reason of want of notice. It will be a proceeding liable to be challenged and corrected. 3. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored. 4. The appellant requests for admission of an additional ground of appeal or additional evidences if required to support his case.”
All the grounds being inter-connected are considered together.
On the date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee
nor any adjournment application was filed though the hearing was
adjourned to the present date at the request of Ld.A.R. We therefore
proceed to decide the present appeal based on the material available
on record and after hearing the learned Departmental Representative.
Before us, Ld.D.R., at the outset, fairly admitted that the tax
effect on the grounds raised by Revenue is below the limit prescribed
by the recent CBDT Circular dt.11.07.2018 and therefore the appeal
be decided accordingly.
We have heard the Ld.D.R. and perused the material available
on record. On perusing the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue,
we find that Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) in respect
of the relief given by him. As per the recent announcement of Central
Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 11.07.2018 (Circular No. 3 of
2018), no Department appeals are to be filed against relief given by ld.
CIT(A) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal unless the tax effect,
excluding interest, exceeds Rs.20 lakhs and it further states that the
instructions will apply retrospectively to the pending appeals also.
In the present case, since it is an undisputed fact that on the
additions which are in dispute, the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs
and in the absence of any material placed on record by the Revenue to
demonstrate that the issue in the present appeal is covered by
exceptions provided in para 10 of the aforesaid CBDT Circular, we are
of the view that the monetary limit prescribed by the instructions of
the aforesaid CBDT Circular would be applicable to the present appeal
of the Department. We therefore hold the present appeal of Revenue
to be not maintainable on account of low tax effect and accordingly
dismiss the appeal of Revenue without expressing any opinion on merits of the case. However, in case there is any error in the computation of the tax effect involved or if for any reason, the aforesaid CBDT Circular is not applicable, it would be open to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal. Thus, the grounds of the Revenue are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 16th day of October, 2019.
( Sd/- Sd/- CHOWLA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 16th October, 2019. Yamini
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad. 4. Pr. CIT-1, Aurangabad. 5 �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “बी” / DR, ITAT, “B” Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER
// True Copy // व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.