What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Revenue's appeal was covered by the CBDT circular and the tax effect did not exceed the prescribed limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of an addition by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the appeal was hit by a CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable in light of CBDT circulars setting monetary limits for appeals.

ITO vs Shri Bipinchandra S. Tamakuwala… | ITAT Ahmedabad 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Respondent: Ms. Kinjal Shah, A.R

Pronounced: 02/05/2018

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-V, Baroda [CIT(A) in short] dated 16/01/2014 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s.143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 24/12/2010 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09.

ITA No.1227/Ahd/2014 ITO vs. Shri Bipinchandra S. Tamakuwala Asst.Year –2008-09 - 2 - 2. The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as under:- (i) The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs.27,39,180/- made on account of gain on purchase of stock in trade of the firm, being deemed income of assessee. (ii) The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the claim of assessee regarding sale/distribution of flat to it in 1996 is apparently correct, despite the fact that assessee failed to produce any evidence to establish that the date of acquisition of the alleged property, was prior to A.Y. 2008-09. (iii) The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that assessee provided completely contradictory sale value of the alleged property at Rs.30,00,000/- as per the Sale Deed dated 3.11.2007 and the value at Rs.9,49,000/--, as admitted, replying to question no. 7 at page no. 4 in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act on 16.12.2010 during the assessment proceedings, proving the AO's finding that assessee’s version is not reliable.

At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the Ld.AR for the assessee that appeal filed by the Revenue is hit by CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10/12/2015. As per aforesaid Circular, all pending appeals filed by Revenue are liable to be dismissed as a measure for reducing litigation where the tax effect does not exceed the prescribed monetary limit which is Rs.10 lakhs. In the instant case, the tax effect on the disputed issue raised by the Revenue is stated to be not exceeding Rs.10 lakhs and therefore appeal of the Revenue is required to be dismissed in limine.

The Ld. DR for the Revenue fairly admitted the applicability of the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015. Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it will be open to the Revenue to seek restoration of its appeal on showing inapplicability of the aforesaid CBDT Circular in any manner.

ITA No.1227/Ahd/2014 ITO vs. Shri Bipinchandra S. Tamakuwala Asst.Year –2008-09 - 3 - 5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 02/05/2018

Sd/- Sd/- ¼e/kqferk jkW; e/kqferk jkW; e/kqferk jkW;½ e/kqferk jkW; ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ U;kf;d lnL; U;kf;d lnL; U;kf;d lnL; U;kf;d lnL; Yks[kk ln Yks[kk ln Yks[kk lnL; Yks[kk ln L; L; L; (MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 02/05/2018 Priti Yadav, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- V, Baroda. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 01/05/2018 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member …01/05/2018 3. Other Member… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S…………….. 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement…… 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S……. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk………………… 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order………………

THE ITO, WARD-5(3), BARODA vs. SHRI BIPINCHANDRA S. TAMAKUWALA, BARODA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments