Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. SANJAY ARORA & SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.569(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15
Income Tax Officer, vs. Sh. Harpreet Singh Sandhu (HUF) Ward-5(2), Amritsar 41-A, Guru Amar Dass Avenue, Ajnala Road, Amritsar PAN:AAEHH6745P (Appellant) (Respondent)
Cross Objection No.02(Asr)/2018 (arising out of ITA No.569(Asr)/2017) Assessment Year: 2014-15
Sh. Harpreet Singh Sandhu (HUF) vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Amritsar 41-A, Guru Amar Dass Avenue, Ajnala Road, Amritsar PAN:AAEHH6745P (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt. Balwinder Kaur (DR) Respondent by: Sh. P.N.Arora (Adv.) Date of hearing: 02.02.2018 Date of pronouncement: 07.02.2018 ORDER Per Bench: This is an Appeal by the Revenue directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Amritsar (‘CIT(A)’ for short)) dated 30.06.2017, allowing the assessee’s appeal contesting its assessment u/s. 144/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for assessment year (AY) 2014-15 vide order dated 29/12/2016. The assessee has also filed a Cross
2 ITA No.569 /Asr/2017 & C.O. No.02/Asr/2017 Harpreet Singh Sandhu (HUF) (AY 2014-15)
Objection (CO), which is admitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. P.N. Arora, Advocate, as supportive in nature.
At the very outset, it was pointed out by Sh. Arora that the Revenue’s appeal is not maintainable in view of sec.268A of the Act, taking us to the assessment order, which determines the assessee’s total tax liability for the year at Rs.9.25 lacs. Upon this, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) would seek time to respond, as the Revenue’s appeal would ostensibly have been filed under an excepting circumstance, which are listed at para 8 of the CBDT Circular (No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015/copy on record) being invoked by the assessee. The Revenue has subsequently placed on record a letter from the office of the Principle Commissioner-II, Amritsar, as well by the Jt. CIT, Range 5, Amritsar, and the concerned Assessing Officer (ITO, Ward-5(2), Amritsar), all dated 01.02.2018, addressed to the ld. DR, stating that the Revenue’s appeal has been filed in view of para 8(a) of the Board Circular dated 10.12.2015 supra. The same saves appeals where the constitutionality of a provision of the Act or Rule is under challenge. On that basis, it is claimed that the Revenue has challenged Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’ hereinafter) per the instant appeal, relying on the decision in the case of Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 1 (Bom).
We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. We find no basis whatsoever in the Revenue’s reliance on para 8 of the Board Circular 21/2015. The Revenue per its instant appeal is actually challenging the non observance of rule 46A of the Rules, mandatory in nature, by the first appellate authority. It is therefore in fact relying on the validity of the said rule, which it claims to have contested before a constitutional court. The argument is patently misconceived. The Revenue’s appeal is, therefore, not maintainable in view of sec.268A of the Act, which provides that an appeal and/or reference by the
3 ITA No.569 /Asr/2017 & C.O. No.02/Asr/2017 Harpreet Singh Sandhu (HUF) (AY 2014-15)
Revenue before an appellate forum would be subject to the monetary limits as prescribed by the Board from time to time, per circulars, instructions, etc., and that the Appellate Tribunal or Court hearing the appeal (or reference) shall have regard to the said circulars, instructions, etc. i.e., issued u/s. 268A(1). Further, the monetary limit for appeals before the Tribunal, as per the said Circular, is Rs.10 lacs. The Revenue’s appeal is filed after 10.12.2015, even as the Circular is also applicable for appeals by the Revenue filed before the said date (refer para 10). The assessee’s CO, as afore-stated, is supportive nature, so that it becomes infructuous.
In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, and the assessee’s CO is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open Court on February 07, 2018
Sd/- Sd/- (N.K.Choudhry) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:07/02/2018 /PK/PS Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) Harpreet Singh Sandhu (HUF), Amritsar (2) The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Amritsar (3) The CIT(Appeals)-2, Amritsar (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True copy By Order