INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, KOLHAPUR vs. LAHORI PREM PAHILAJRAJ,, KOLHAPUR

PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :

This appeal filed by the Revenue is emanating out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) – 1, Kolhapur dated 05.09.2018 for A.Y. 2010-11.

Assessee is an individual, who electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 25.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.7,10,390/-. The case was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.09.2011 was issued and

served on assessee on 28.09.2011. Thereafter, the case was selected for

scrutiny and assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order

dt.26.11.2012 determining the total income at Rs.10,52,022/-.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before

Ld.CIT(A) who vide order dt.05.09.2018 (in appeal No.Kop/358/2014-15)

allowed the appeal of assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A),

Revenue is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds :

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) – 1, Kolhapur, has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.60,680/- made on account of difference in balance in debtors account. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) – 1, Kolhapur has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee himself expressed inability to reconcile the difference and given consent for addition which requires to be sustained following SC decision in B. Kishor Kumar Vs. DCIT, Chennai in 62 Taxman 215(SC). 3. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”

nor any adjournment application was filed despite service of notice. I

therefore proceed to decide the present appeal based on the material

available on record and after hearing Ld. D.R.

on the grounds raised by Revenue is below the limit prescribed by the

recent CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dt.08.08.2019 and therefore the

appeal be decided accordingly.

record. On perusing the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, I 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 08.08.2019 (Circular No. 17 of 2019), 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.50 lakhs and it further states that the instructions will apply

retrospectively to the pending appeals also. I find that in the present case

the tax effect involved is less than Rs.50 lakhs. 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, I am 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. I therefore hold the

present appeal of Revenue to be not maintainable on account of low tax

effect and even also on merits. 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.

Order pronounced on 16th day of October, 2019.

/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) 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, Kolhapur. Pr. CIT-1, Kolhapur. 4. 5 �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक सद�य” / DR, ITAT, “SMC” 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.