ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER vs. M/S. JATAN CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, AJMER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 796/JPR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 August 2018AY 2014-0153 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the Rs. 20 lacs limit set by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A). The tax effect involved in the appeal was below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT.

What were the issues?

Whether the departmental appeal is maintainable when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit set by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 268A

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. 796/JP/2018

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

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; ikWy 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. 796/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 cuke Asstt. Commissioner of Income- Jatan Construction Pvt. Vs. tax, Circle-2, Ltd., Jatan house,Todarmal Ajmer Marg, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACJ3635P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohit Tiwari (Adv.) 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: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT (A)- Ajmer dated 15.03.2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15 wherein the Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), Ajmer has erred in:

1.

Whether looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Rs. 16,52,500/-.”

2 ITA No. 796/JP/2018 ACIT, Ajmer vs. Jatan Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer 2. The ld. D/R has submitted that the tax effect involved in the

Revenue’s appeal comes to Rs 16,52,500/- less than Rs 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.

3.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on

record. It is observed that the demand/ tax effect in the Revenue’s appeal in question is below Rs. 20.00 lacs. Under the powers vested by section

268A(1) of the IT Act, CBDT has recently issued Circular No. 3/2018 11th dated 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.

4.

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.

5.

The present appeal is not covered by any exceptions mentioned in the

said CBDT circular. Since the tax demand in dispute in this departmental

appeal is below the limit set out by CBDT for the appeal, the appeal of the

assessee is not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated

11.07.2018. Accordingly the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not

pressed/withdrawn.

3 ITA No. 796/JP/2018 ACIT, Ajmer vs. Jatan Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/08/2018.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; ikWy jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Vijay Pal Rao) (Vikram Singh Yadav) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 13/08/2018 *Ganesh Kr. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- ACIT, Ajmer 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Jatan Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer 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. 796/JP/2018} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →