Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2018-19. The Id. DR prayed for withdrawal of the appeal on the grounds that the gross tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing further appeals.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Id. DR had filed a letter requesting withdrawal of the appeal due to the gross tax effect being below the prescribed limit. The assessee's AR had no objection to the withdrawal.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal can be withdrawn on the grounds of gross tax effect being below the prescribed limit for filing further appeals before the ITAT.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.1089/JP/2024
ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 02-07-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2018-19 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deciding the case on technical ground rather than on merits of the case in spite of the fact the case has not been converted from Limited Scrutiny to Complete Scrutiny and the AO has elaborately discussed the issue of cash deposits as well as source of cash deposit which comes under the purview of Limited Scrutiny?
ITO, WARD 6(1) , JAIPUR VS POOJA GIDWANI 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the AO has travelled beyond his jurisdiction and made addition on the issues which are not part of the reasons for limited scrutiny in spite of the fact that books of account has been rejected by the AO on the issue of cash deposit and source of cash deposit? 2.1 At the outset of the hearing of the appeal, it is noted that the ld DR vide letter dated 15-01-2025 has prayed for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the gross tax effect is below the limit prescribed for filing further appeal. To this effect, the ld. DR has filed the copy of letter No. ITO/Ward-6(1)/JPR/2024-25/607 dated 23-02-2024 wherein the narration at para 3 is reproduced as under:- ‘’3. Total tax effect involved in this case is Rs.53,96,271/-. The case is not covered in any of the exceptions laid down in CBDT Instruction Circular No.09/2004 of Central Board of Direct Tax dated 17-09-2004 for filing of appeal before the ITAT and Hon’ble High Court. The gross tax effect is below the limit prescribed for filing further appeal. Hence, the appeal is withdrawn.
2.2 On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee has supported the order of the ld.CIT(A), and the ld. AR of the assessee has no objection as to the withdrawal of the appeal by the ld. DR. 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, it is noted that in this case the gross tax effect is below the limit ITO, WARD 6(1) , JAIPUR VS POOJA GIDWANI prescribed for filing appeal before ITAT. Hence, in this view of the matter, we allow to withdraw the appeal presented by the Department.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as having been withdrawn. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16 -01-2025.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼ ujsUnz dqekj ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Narender Kumar) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 16/01/2025 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- The ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Pooja Gidwani, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.1089/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत