DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI HARSHVARDHAN JOHARI, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 97/JPR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 August 2018AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed threshold limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 45,00,000/-. The tax effect involved in the appeal was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT when the tax effect is below the threshold limit specified by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 97/JP/2018

Hearing: 21/08/2018Pronounced: 21/08/2018

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. 97/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 cuke Deputy Commissioner of Sh. Harsh Vardhan Johari, Vs. Income-tax, Central Circle-03, T-02, Pallvi Apartment, Jaipur Opp. Laxmi Vilas Hotel, Tonk Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFVPJ2660R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Smt. Juhi lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 21/08/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 21/08/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT (A)- 04, Jaipur dated 03.11.2017 for Assessment Year 2008-09 wherein the Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- in view of decision of Jai Steel Limited vs. ACIT (88 DTR 1) (Raj. HC), Kabul Chawla vs. ACIT 380 ITR 573 (Del HC) & Soumya Construction PL vs. CIT 387 ITR 529 without considering the fact that seized material related to the year under consideration was

2 ITA No. 97/JP/2018 DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur vs. Sh. Harsh Vardhan Johari, Jaipur found during the search proceedings and also mentioned in the assessment order.”

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- in view of decision of Jai Steel Limited vs. ACIT (88 DTR HC) & Soumya Construction PL vs. CIT 387 ITR 529 without considering the fact that seized material related to the year under consideration the fact that seized material related to the year under consideration was found during the search proceedings and also mentioned in the assessment order.”

2.

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

appeal is 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

3 ITA No. 97/JP/2018 DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur vs. Sh. Harsh Vardhan Johari, Jaipur 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. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/08/2018. 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:- 21/08/2018 *Ganesh Kr. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- DCIT, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Sh. Harsh Vardhan Johari, 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. 97/JP/2018} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →