Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM
आदेश / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :
These two appeals filed by the Revenue are emanating out of the 1. orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) – 5 and 13, Pune dated 09.12.2016 and 20.01.2017 for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.
Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that though the appeals filed by the Revenue are for two different assessment years but the facts and issues involved in both the appeals are identical except for the assessment year and the amounts involved and therefore the submissions made by them while arguing one appeal would be equally applicable to the other appeal also and thus both the appeals can be
heard together. In view of the aforesaid submissions of both the parties,
we, for the sake of convenience, proceed to dispose of both the appeals
by a consolidated order but however, proceed with narrating the facts in
ITA No.1261/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14.
The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as
under :-
Assessee is a firm engaged in the business of Promoters, Builders
and Contractors. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14
on 20.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.Nil. The case was selected
for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act
vide order dated 21.03.2016 and the total income was determined at
Rs.88,47,990/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the
matter before Ld.CIT(A) who vide order dt.09.12.2016 (in appeal
No.PN/CIT(A)5/ITO, Ward-12(1), Pune/132/2016-17) granted partial
relief to the 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 circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act, 1961 on pro rata basis in respect of Project Twin Nest.
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), was justified in allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act to a housing project approved on 27.03.2006 which was still incomplete by 31.03.2011 in violation of Section 80IB(10)(a) Explanation (ii) of the Act which requires the completion certificate to be issue by the local authority for the earlier approved housing project.”
Similar grounds have been raised by the Revenue in ITA
No.717/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15.
Before us, at the outset, Ld.A.R. submitted that the appeal of the
Revenue is not maintainable on account of low tax effect and therefore,
the appeal of the Revenue be dismissed. Ld.D.R. did not object to the
aforesaid contention made by the Ld.A.R.
We have heard the rival submissions 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. The Circular further states that
the instructions will apply retrospectively to the pending appeals also.
In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that on the addition which
is in dispute, the tax effect is less than Rs.20 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, 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 in ITA
No.1261/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 is dismissed.
Now we take up Revenue’s in ITA No.717/PUN/2018 for A.Y 2014-
15.
8.1. As far as the grounds raised in appeal in ITA No.717/PUN/2018
for A.Y. 2014-15 is concerned, in view of the submission of both the
parties that the facts of the case in the year being identical to the facts
and issue of the case in ITA No.1261/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14, we
therefore for the reasons stated herein while disposing of the appeal in
ITA No.1261/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 and for similar reasons hold
that the appeal of Revenue to be not maintainable on account of low tax
effect and accordingly dismiss the appeal of Revenue. Thus, the
grounds of Revenue are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No.717/PUN/ 2018
for A.Y. 2014-15 is dismissed.
To sum up, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced on the 27th day of June, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 27th June, 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)-5, Pune & CIT(A)-13, Pune. 4. Pr. CIT-4, Pune & Pr.CCIT-Pune. 5 �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “ए” / DR, ITAT, “A” Pune; 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER // True Copy // व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.