DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SUMAN KATTA, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 320/JPR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 August 2018AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in both appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals due to the tax effect being below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeals are maintainable when the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. Whether the deletion of additions under Section 68 by the CIT(A) was correct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 268A(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 319 & 320/JP/2017

Hearing: 13/08/2018Pronounced: 13/08/2018

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 319 & 320/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 cuke D.C.I.T., Smt. Suman Katta, Vs. Central Circle-3, 18, Siyaram Street, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Durgapura, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACBPK 4356 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani (CA). lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing: 13/08/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 13/08/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.:

Both these appeals by the revenue are directed against the separate

orders dated 28/02/2017 of ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur for the A.Y. 2010-11 &

2012 respectively. In both the appeals the revenue has raised following

grounds of appeal: Grounds for the A.Y. 2010-11 “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 43,50,379/- made by the A.O. U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant craves leave to reserve the right to amend, modify, alter add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” Grounds for the A.Y. 2011-12

2 ITA No. 319 & 320/JP/2017 DCIT Vs Suman Katta

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,00,610/- & Rs. 27,50,000/- made by the A.O. U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The appellant craves leave to reserve the right to amend, modify, alter add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.”

2.

At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has raised an objection

of maintainability of the appeals of the Revenue for both the assessment years

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 appeals are stated to be Rs. 13,44,000/- for

the A.Y. 2010-11 on the addition of Rs. 53,63,370/- and Rs. 10,04,000/- for the

A.Y. 2011-12 on the addition of Rs. 44,82,350/- which is below the prescribed

limit of Rs 20 lacs.

3.

The ld. D/R has fairly submitted that the tax effect involved in both the

Revenue’s appeals are 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 both the Revenue’s

appeals 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.

3 ITA No. 319 & 320/JP/2017 DCIT Vs Suman Katta 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 appeals are not covered by any exceptions mentioned in the said CBDT circular. Since the tax demand in dispute in this departmental appeals are below the limit set out by CBDT for the appeal, the appeals of the assessee are not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018. Accordingly the appeals of the Department are dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13/08/2018. Sd/- Sd/- ¼foØe flag ;kno½ ¼fot; iky jko½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 13th August, 2018 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The D.C.I.T., Central Circle-3, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Smt. Suman Katta, Jaipur. 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. 319 & 320/JP/2017) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →