SHRI PARTH SARTHI NAIDU,INDORE vs. THE ITO 2(4), INDORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable based on a circular regarding tax effect. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which restricted an addition made by the AO. The assessee also filed an appeal challenging the estimation of commission income. The Revenue's appeal was found to be not maintainable due to low tax effect.
What were the issues?
Maintainability of Revenue's appeal due to tax effect and withdrawal of assessee's appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCHE, INDORE
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD
आदेश / O R D E R
PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: These cross appeals filed by the Assessee and by the Revenue are directed against the order of CIT(A)-I, Indore dated 06/12/2016 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. 2. At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Revenue’s appeal is not maintainable. In view of the tax effect being lower than the prescribed limit he has also filed income tax computation form issued by the Revenue where net tax payable by the assessee is Rs.19,21,480/- in respect of the appeal of the Revenue. Further it is requested that the under the instruction of assessee wishes to withdraw the appeal in ITANo.251/Ind/2017.
First, we take up Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.256/Ind/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether in facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs.44,38,345/- to Rs.13,13,782/- made by the AO by way of estimating the profit @ 4% of gross freight receipts at Rs.11,09,58,622/-, which was over and
Parth Sarthi Naidu
above the commission receipts Rs.31,24,563/- shown by the assessee in spite of numerous discrepancies pointed out by the AO in respect of figures reflected in the 26AS and actual receipts shown by the assessee. 2. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.13,15,011/- made by the AO on account of TDS receivables as income u/s 198 in spite of the fact that the amount of TDS certificates were not incorporated in Profit & Loss account. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deciding the appeal without establishing the facts of the case.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We are in agreement of the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Revenue’s appeal is not maintainable in view of the Circular No. No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018. 4. Ld. DR has not demonstrated that the present case falls into any exceptions embodied into the said circular. We, therefore, dismiss appeal of Revenue in ITANo.256/Ind/2017.
Now, we take up Assessee’s appeal in ITA No.251/Ind/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
Parth Sarthi Naidu
“That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in estimation of commission income At 4% on gross freight amount, which comes to Rs.44,38,345/- against the disclosed commission in profit and loss account of Rs.31,24,563/- without appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made before him.” 5. The assessee has filed a submission seeking withdrawal of the appeal. 6. The Ld. DR has no objection with the submission of the Ld. Counsel. 7. Having heard both the parties we dismiss assessee’s appeal in ITANo.251/Ind/2017 as withdrawn. 8. In the result, both appeals of the Revenue and Assessee i.e. ITA No. 256/Ind/2017 & ITA NO.251/Ind/2017 are dismissed.
Order was pronounced in the open court on 26 .07.2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER Indore; �दनांक Dated : 26/ 07/2018 Patel, P.S/.�न.स.
Parth Sarthi Naidu
Copy to: Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/Guard file. By order Private Secretary/DDO, Indore
More judgments on Section 198
- Hanoze Harish Thakkar, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(5), MumbaiITA 9314/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Netscout Systems Industrial Private… vs DCIT- Circle 1(3)(1), MumbaiITA 3582/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Anita Grover, Delhi vs Income Tax Officer, DelhiITA 4305/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
- Knight Frank Property Services Private… vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 1247/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed8 Jul 2026AY 2018-19
- JCIT(OSD)(E) Circle-1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs Gujarat Maritime Board, GandhinagarITA 212/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed13 May 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dikshant Nim vs. Union Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Pankaj Patil vs. Branch Manager Hdfc BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Rudra Pratap Singh vs. The Union Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026