CHEMFERT TRADERS (BOMBAY) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 721/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 November 2020AY 2004-053 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions applied. Therefore, the appeal was to be treated as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of excise duty on closing stock. The assessee did not appear for the hearing. The tax effect of the disputed amount was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is to be dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT circulars, despite the merits of the disallowance of excise duty on closing stock.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 145A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar

The present appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 10th February 2010, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–III, Hyderabad, for the assessment year 2005–06.

2.

When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the respondent assessee to represent the case. There is no application seeking adjournment either. Considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose off the appeal ex–parte qua the 2 S.S. Oral Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd.

respondent assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record.

3.

On a perusal of record, it is noticed that the only effective ground raised in the present appeal is ground no.2, pertaining to the issue of addition made on disallowance of excise duty on closing stock of finished goods by invoking the provisions of section 145A of the Act. It is further noticed that the addition made on this account by the Assessing Officer in the earlier order is to the tune of ` 26,29,734. Undisputedly, while deciding the appeal of the assessee on the issue, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted this addition. Thus, the amount disputed by the Revenue in the present appeal is ` 26,29,734. When a query was raised to the learned Departmental Representative whether the tax effect on the aforesaid disputed amount is below the limit of ` 50 lakh, as per CBDT Circular no.17/ 2019, dated 8th August 2019, r/w CBDT Circular no.3/2018, dated 11th July 2018, the learned Departmental Representative fairly submitted that the tax effect is below the amount of ` 50 lakh as per the aforesaid CBDT circular. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the tax effect on the amount disputed in the present appeal is below the monetary limit of ` 50 lakh and none of the exceptions as provided under the aforesaid circular issued by the CBDT is applicable, the 3 S.S. Oral Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd.

present appeal has to be treated as withdrawn, hence dismissed. Accordingly, we do so.

4.

In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced through notice board under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, on 02.11.2020

More judgments on Section 145A

All 656 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →