THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. GITABEN PRABHATBHAI DESAI, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1849/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 September 2022AY 2012-132 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 appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed at the threshold.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained investment in a bungalow. The tax effect in both appeals was below Rs. 50 lakhs.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals before the Tribunal given the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA & T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Vaibha Shah, AR
Hearing: 01/09/2022Pronounced: 02/09/2022

(Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Vaibha Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 01/09/2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The present two appeals are filed by the Revenue against separate orders passed by the ld.Commissioner of Income(A)-4, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)”] of even dated 1.10.2019 passed under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Asst.Year 2011-12 and 2012-13.

2.

In these two appeals, the grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.50.00 lakhs in Asst.Year 2011-12 and Rs.71.40 lakhs for the Asst.Year 2012-12 on account of unexplained investment for purchase of residential bungalow.

3.

At the outset, it is pointed out by the ld.counsel of the assessee that appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable, because tax effect involved in these appeals is below Rs.50 lakhs. Even in Form

2 No. no.36, in ground of appeal at Sr.No.10, the Department has mentioned total tax effect on the disputed addition for the Asstt.Year 2011-12 at Rs.14,55,658/- for A.Y.2011-12 and Rs.21,21,768/- for the Asstt.Year 2012-13, and therefore, in view of recent CBDT circular no.17 of 2019 prohibiting filing of appeal by the Department before the Tribunal where tax effect is below Rs.50 lakhs, the appeals of the Revenue are liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The ld.DR did not dispute applicability of the recent CBDT circular and left to the Tribunal to pass appropriate order in the matter.

4.

Admittedly tax effect in both appeals of the Revenue are below Rs.50 lakhs, and therefore, keeping in view the above CBDT circular and provisions of section 268A of the Income Tax Act, we are of the view that the present appeals of the Revenue deserve to be dismissed at the threshold. They are accordingly dismissed.

However, it is observed that in case on re-verification at the end of the AO it can be demonstrated that the tax effect on the disputed addition is more, or Revenue’s case falls within the ambit of exceptions provided in the Circular, then the Department will be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall of this order. Such application should be filed within the time period prescribed in the Act

5.

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed due to low tax effect.

Order pronounced in the Court on 2nd September, 2022 at Ahmedabad.

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →