THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. LASHEEKA INFRASTRUCTURE, AHMEDABAD

By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of the order dated 8th February 2016, passed by the learned CIT(A)-7, Ahmedabad for the assessment year 2012-13, on the following grounds:

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.41,45 800/- made u/s 68 of the Act by the AO, as the CIT(A) admitted fresh evidences in contravention of the provision of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rule.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in not appreciating the fact that “since the appellant was unable to furnish the details/evidence regarding identity of the depositors and their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, the loan transaction from 209 persons (all below Rs.20,000/-) could not be held as explained and hence CIT(A) erred in deleting the entire addition.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs.41,45,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, only the basis of remand report of AO relying on inquiries made in respect of six depositors only out of total 209 depositors.”

At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the present appeal of the Revenue needs to be dismissed on account of low tax effect in view of the recent CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018.The learned

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. I find that prima-facie this appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable in view of the recent CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 in F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt) dated 11th July, 2018, vide which it has been decided by the Board that no departmental appeals should be filed before the Tribunal if the tax effect by virtue of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)’s order is below Rs. 20 lacs. The Board has provided exemptions at clause (10) of the Instructions wherein it has been provided that these instructions will not be applicable, where the Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act/Rule is under challenge or where Board’s order, notification, instruction or circular has been held to be illegal or where Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department or where the addition relates to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts etc. I find that the present case does not fall within the exemption clause and the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lacs. Therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable and hence dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 4th October, 2018 Pramod Kumar (Accountant Member) Ahmedabad, the 4th day of October, 2018 **bt Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order