What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The appeal was dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which granted relief to the assessee. The Revenue's grounds of appeal challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 65,00,000/- made on account of unexplained cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable on account of low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018.

ITO vs Shri Virendra Kumar Shukla… | ITAT Raipur 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Doshi

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar

Hearing: 18.01.2019Pronounced: 18.01.2019

आदेश / ORDER

PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :

This appeal filed by Revenue emanate out of the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (A)-II, Raipur dated 09-03-2016 for A.Y. 2011-12.

The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as under :

Whether in law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in declaring the addition of Rs.65,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits made by the assessee in two saving bank account. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both in law and on facts. 3. Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing”.

Before us, at the outset, Ld. A.R. submitted that the appeal of the Revenue needs to be dismissed on account of low tax effect. Ld. D.R. did not object to the aforesaid contention made by the Ld. A.R.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusing the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, we find that Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) in respect of the relief given by him. As per the recent announcement of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 11.07.2018 (Circular No. 3 of 2018), no Department appeals are to be filed against relief given by ld.

3 ITA No.141/RPR/2016

CIT(A) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal unless the tax effect, excluding interest, exceeds Rs.20 lakhs. The Circular further states that the instructions will apply retrospectively to the pending appeals also. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that on the additions which are in dispute, the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs. In the absence of any material placed on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the issue in the present appeal is covered by exceptions provided in para 10 of the aforesaid CBDT Circular, we are of the view that the monetary limit prescribed by the instructions of the aforesaid CBDT Circular would be applicable to the present appeal of the Department. We therefore hold the present appeal of Revenue to be not maintainable on account of low tax effect and accordingly dismiss the appeal of Revenue without expressing any opinion on merits of the case. However, in case there is any error in the computation of the tax effect involved or if for any reason, the aforesaid CBDT Circular is not applicable, it would be open to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal. Thus, the grounds of the Revenue are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 18th day of January, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ANIL CHATURVEDI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; ददनांक / Dated : 18th January, 2019. RK

4 ITA No.141/RPR/2016

आदेश की प्रधतधलधप अग्रेधषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, I.T.A.T., Raipur //True Copy// //True Copy//

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

ननजी सनिव / Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अनिकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur.

5 ITA No.141/RPR/2016

Date 1 Draft dictated on 18.01.2019 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 18.01.2019 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed JM/AM before the second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by AM/JM second Member 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), BHILAI(CG) vs. SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA, DURG(CG)

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments