DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. BINDER SINGH , BATHINDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 243/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 March 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 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 grounds urged by the assessee in the Cross Objection should have been filed as a separate appeal. Therefore, the Cross Objection was dismissed, and the Revenue's appeal was also dismissed due to lack of tax effect.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A), and the assessee filed a Cross Objection. The Revenue's appeal was below the CBDT's monetary limit, leading to its dismissal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's grounds should be filed as a separate appeal rather than a Cross Objection, and dismissal of Revenue's appeal due to insufficient tax effect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25/03/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenueand the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana dt. 05/01/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19.

2.

At the outset the Ld. AR had pointed out that the tax effect in this appeal of the Revenue is below Rs. 60,00,000/- and our reference was drawn to the Form No. 36 filed by the Revenue with the tax effect has been mentioned at Rs. 50,05,800. It was submitted that on account of the CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 the appeal of the Revenue is required to be dismissed.

2.1 Ld. DR had not disputed the tax effect in the matter.

2.2 In view of the fact that the tax effect in the appeal of the Revenue is below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT. We dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.

3.

The Ld AR has submitted that the assessee has also preferred a Cross Objection against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds:

1. That the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana has erred in the eyes of law as well on the facts in in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing the surrender on account of building amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- u/s 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the various judgments of the Jurisdictional Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in many cases, where the amount offered during survey under similar circumstances have been taxed at the normal rate of tax. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that during the course of survey, no other income was noticed by the department and, as such, taxing the amount offered as deemed income, is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That the respondent craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

It was submitted that the permission to withdraw the Cross Objection may kindly be consider, as the assessee is contemplating, to file a substantive appeal alongwith the application for condonation of the delay.

4.

The Ld. DR has no objection for withdrawing the Cross Objection.

5.

We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available on the record. In the present case the C.O has been preferred by the assessee in the appeal preferred by the Revenue, on the grounds raised therein. In our respectful understanding grounds urged by the assessee are required to be urged by way of separate appeal, and not by way of a Cross Objection. In view of the above we deem it appropriate to grant the liberty to the assessee to withdraw the cross objection. The assessee may prefer the substantive appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law. Needless to say alongwith the appeal the assessee may filed the condonation application, which may be considered by the Bench sympathetically considering the withdrawal of the cross objection by the assessee, on its own merits, and in accordance with law.

6.

In light of the above the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is dismissed.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the Assessee stand dismissed.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →