ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 534/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 April 2025AY 2012-13Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President), Shri Manjunatha, G. (Accountant Member)9 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No.9/2024. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad for AY 2012-13. The Revenue's grounds of appeal primarily challenged the CIT(A)'s findings regarding defective reasons to believe and the void nature of reassessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable considering the tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT Circular No.9/2024.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ SM/DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Manjunatha, G.

Hearing: 22/04/2025

(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2012-13) ACIT Vs. Rithiwik Projects (P) Ltd Central Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN: AABCR5748L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Smt. U Mini Chandran, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 22/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/04/2025 आदेश/ORDER

Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President

1.

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated, 07/07/2020 of the learned CIT (A)-12, Hyderabad for the A.Y. 2012-13.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT (A) erred both in law and on facts of the case.

2. The learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the reasons to believe are defective and that the re-assessement proceedings are ab initio void without adjudicating on Page 1 of 3 merits the issue of unexplained investments of Rs.1,71,50,000/-.

3. The learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the reasons to believe are based on mere suspicion and not ascertained facts as the Assessing Officer had used the word ‘probably’ with reference to the source of the sum of Rs.1,71,50,000/- being liquidation of assets.

4. The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the entire facts narrated in the reasons to believe and the fact that the Assessing Officer had categorically recorded that the sum of Rs.1,71,50,000/- credited in the books of M/s. Pushpadent Infrastructures Ltd is not genuine.

5.

The learned CIT (A) erred in interpreting various judicial decisions and relating them to the facts of the case. The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered that sufficiency of reasons are not open to question in a court of law and that at the time of reopening escapement of income is not required to be established”.

3.

Thus, the total tax effect as per Form-36 is Rs.55,64,318/-. The learned DR as well as the learned AR of the assessee has accepted the fact that the tax effect in this appeal of the Revenue is below the monetary limit of Rs.60 lakhs provided in CBDT Circular No.9/2024 dated 17/09/2024 and therefore, this appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. We further note that as per para-5 of the CBDT Circular No.9/2024, it is also applicable to the appeals pending on the date of this circular. For ready reference, para 2 and 5 of the circular is reproduced as under:

4.

Accordingly, this appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable due to the tax effect below the threshold limit provided in Circular No.9/2024 and consequently, the same is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →