INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. M/S C.M. GOENKA CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 510/JPR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 July 2018AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of additions by the CIT(A). The assessee also filed a cross-objection challenging the reopening of assessment. The tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal based on the tax effect and the applicability of CBDT circulars. The assessee's challenge to the reopening under Section 148 was not pressed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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. 510/JP/2018

Hearing: 31/07/2018Pronounced: 31/07/2018

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 510/JP/2018
C.O. No. 17/JP/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

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. 510/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Income Tax Officer, M/s C.M. Goenka Capital Markets Vs. Ward-2(2), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 206, Jaipur Tower, M.I. Road, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACC 7518 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent izR;k{ksi.k@C.O. No. 17/JP/2018 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 510/JP/2018) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year 2009-10 cuke M/s C.M. Goenka Capital Markets Income Tax Officer, Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(2), 206, Jaipur Tower, M.I. Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACC 7518 A izR;k{ksid@Objector izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Raj Mehra (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar & Ms. Isha Kanoongo (Adv.) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 31/07/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 31/07/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M.: This is the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Kota dated

ITA 510/JP/2018 & C.O. 17/JP/2018_ 2 ITO Vs C.M. Goenka Capital Markets P Ltd. 19/01/2018 pertaining to the A.Y. 2009-10 wherein, the revenue and the assessee have taken following grounds of appeal:

Grounds of revenue’s appeal:

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in:

1.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 35,31,603/- made by the A.O. on account of suppression of profit by taking fictitious loss entries through Client Code Modification?

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 70,632/- made by the A.O. on account of commission payments?

Grounds of assessee’s C.O.:

1.

That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the order U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O. erred in issuing notice U/s 148 even though such reopening on the basis of alleged client code modification is struck down by the Bombay High court in the case of Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. (Writ Petition No. 2627 of 2016) and consequently order passed U/s 148/143(3) is ab-initio-void.

3.

The assessee carves your indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

2.

Firstly, we will take up the cross objection filed by the assessee wherein it has challenged the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing the notice U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

ITA 510/JP/2018 & C.O. 17/JP/2018_ 3 ITO Vs C.M. Goenka Capital Markets P Ltd. 2.1 At the outset of hearing, the ld AR of the assessee has not pressed the grounds of the C.O., therefore, the same stands dismissed as not pressed. 3. Now we take the revenue’s appeal:

At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has raised an objection of maintainability of the appeal of the Revenue 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 appeal is stated to be Rs. 11,13,091/- on the addition of Rs 54,02,380/- which is below the prescribed limit of Rs 20 lacs.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

Subject to some exceptions, it is further directed by CBDT that all the departmental appeals pending before ITAT where the demand/tax

ITA 510/JP/2018 & C.O. 17/JP/2018_ 4 ITO Vs C.M. Goenka Capital Markets P Ltd. effect is not exceeding than 20 lacs should be either withdrawn or not pressed by the departmental representatives.

7.

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.

8.

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the C.O. of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/07/2018

Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky 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:- 31st July, 2018 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The ITO, Ward-2(2), Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@The Respondent- M/s C.M. Goenka Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd., 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. 510/JP/2018 & CO 17/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 →