ITO, BHARATPUR vs. RAJ KUMAR GOYAL, BHARATPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 241/JPR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 August 2018AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order reducing additions made on account of non-genuine loans and interest, and deleting a trading addition. The tax effect in the appeal was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of departmental appeal before ITAT when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit set by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A(1),Section 145(3)

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. 241/JP/2017

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM :

This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 06.01.2017 of

ld. CIT (A), Alwar for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the

following grounds :-

“ 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT (A) erred in reducing the addition of Rs. 54,30,000/- to Rs. 9,00,000/- which was made by AO on account of non-genuine accommodation entries/unsecured loans taken by the assessee.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT (A) erred in reducing the addition of Rs. 5,27,538/- to Rs. 2,11,800/- which was made by AO on account of interest paid on non genuine accommodation entries/unsecured loans taken by the assessee.

3.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the trading addition of Rs. 9,86,536/- made by

2 ITA No. 241/JP/2017 Shri Raj Kumar Goyal, Bharatpur.

AO by invoking provision of section 145(3) of the IT Act after rejecting the books of account.

2.

The dispute in the appeal of the revenue is regarding reducing the addition of

Rs. 54,30,000/- to Rs. 9,00,000/- and reducing the addition of Rs. 5,27,538/- to Rs.

2,11,800/- which were made by AO on account of non genuine accommodation

entries/unsecured loans and interest paid on non-genuine accommodation

entries/unsecured loans respectively and deletion of trading addition of Rs.

9,86,536/- made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 145(3).

Admittedly the tax effect in the revenue’s appeal is not exceeding the limit of Rs. 20

lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018.

2.1. The ld. D/R has fairly submitted that the tax effect involved in the Revenue’s

appeal is 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.

3.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials 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 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. 241/JP/2017 Shri Raj Kumar Goyal, Bharatpur.

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 Department is dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28/08/2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (foØe flag ;kno) (fot; iky jkWo ½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Jaipur Dated:- 28/08/2018. Das/

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू

1.

The Appellant- The Income-tax Officer, Ward 2, Bharatpur. 2. The Respondent –Shri Raj Kumar Goyal, Bharatpur. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 241/JP/2017) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

4 ITA No. 241/JP/2017 Shri Raj Kumar Goyal, Bharatpur.

More judgments on Section 268A(1)

All 190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →