Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER to 2277/Bang/2018 Assessment years : 2011-12 to 2014-15 The ACIT (Exemptions), Vs. M/s. Hyderabad Karnataka Circle – 1, Education Society, Mangaluru. SAC Building, PDA Engineering Campus, Aiwan E Shahi Road, Kalburgi – 585 102. PAN : AAAH 1008 G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 11.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2020 O R D E R Per A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
All these 4 appeals are filed by the Revenue and these are directed against a combined order of learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji, dated 29.05.2018 for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.
Learned AR of the assessee Mr. Rajkumar Hanchnal, Chartered Accountant, moved an application for adjournment of hearing of these appeals but the Bench noted that the tax effect in these appeals of the Revenue appears to be below Rs. 50 lakhs in each year and when this query was put to the to 2277/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 3 learned DR of the Revenue, learned DR of the Revenue could not point out that the tax effect in these appeals is above Rs.50 lakhs in any one or more of these 4 years. But it was submitted by learned DR of the Revenue that even if these appeals are dismissed by the Bench on the basis of the low tax effect, liberty should be granted to the Revenue to file MP as per the provisions of section 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), if it is found by the AO that the tax effect in any one or more years out of these 4 years is more than Rs.50 lakhs. Under these facts, the adjournment request moved by learned AR of the assessee was rejected and these appeals were taken as heard and are being disposed of in the light of the submissions made by learned DR of the Revenue as noted above.
We have considered the submissions of learned DR of the Revenue and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that in Assessment Year 2011-12, as per Form 36 filed by the Revenue, the returned income was Rs.5,58,72,000/- and the assessed income was Rs.5,74,19,470/- and as per the same, the total addition made by the AO is only of Rs.15,47,470/-. Similarly, in Assessment Year 2012-13, as per Form 36 filed by the Revenue, the returned income was Rs.14,38,49,999/- and the assessed income was Rs.14,78,34,169/- which means that in this year, the addition made by the AO was Rs.39,84,170/-. In Assessment Year 2013-14, as per Form 36 filed by the Revenue, the returned income was Rs.1405 lakhs and the assessed income was Rs.14,34,91,390/- which means that there was an addition of Rs.29,91,390/- only. Similarly, in Assessment Year 2014-15, as per Form 36 filed by the Revenue, the returned income was Rs.560 lakhs and the assessed income was Rs.575.51 lakhs which means that there was an addition of Rs.15.51 lakhs only. As per these figures of addition in these 4 years, it is seen that even if the entire addition is deleted by learned CIT(A) and the Revenue is in appeal against deletion of the entire amount of such addition then also, the tax effect in each year will be below Rs.50 lakhs. As per the grounds raised
by the Revenue in these appeals, the grievance is regarding deletion / reduction in the interest charged by the AO under sections 234A and 234B of the Act and the amount of deletion/ reduction of interest is not indicated by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal to 2277/Bang/2018 Page 3 of 3 and therefore, considering the facts of the present case as noted above, it appears to us that the tax effect in each of the 4 appeals filed by the Revenue is below Rs.50 lakhs and therefore, we hold that none of these appeals filed by the Revenue is maintainable in view of low tax effect as per the latest instruction of CBDT. However, we feel it proper to grant liberty to the Revenue to file MP under section 254(2) of the Act if it is found by the AO that the tax effect in any one or more out of 4 appeals of the Revenue is more than Rs.50 lakhs by filing the evidence of such higher tax effect along with MP.
4. In the result, all the 4 appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.