DCIT (TDS),JAIPUR vs. OM METALS INFRA PROJECTS LTD., JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 53/JPR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 June 2017AY 2010-113 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 appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT guidelines.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 53/JP/2017

Hearing: 30.05.2017Pronounced: 07.06.2017

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.

This Appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (A)-III,

Jaipur dated 28/10/2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and fact by considering the claims of assessee with respect of non deduction of TDS on transportation expense, however, in fact, assesee is not involved in the business of plying, hiring or leasing good, which are requisite conditions for the application of section 194 (C) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in considering the assessee’s claim in respect of declaration in form 27C which was required to be received at the time of purchase of goods by buyer and copy of declaration should be deposited by responsible person with competent Authority on the specified date as required by Rule 37C and the assessee failed to comply with such legal requirements. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and fact by giving specific direction on account of demand

2 ITA No. 53/JP/2017 M/s Om Metals Infra Projects Ltd., Jaipur.

raised u/s 206C(7) for chagrining interest violates the provision of section 206C(7) of the Act.”

2.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal is

not maintainable on account of low tax effect. Ld. Counsel for the assessee

submitted that the AO made addition on account of non-collection of TDS. He drew

our attention to the Assessment Order in support of the contention that the total

demand raised in respect of interest and the tax was Rs. 14,63,407/- out of which

Rs. 5,96,258/- was the interest. If the interest is reduced, the tax effect would be

lesser than the prescribed limit of 10 lakhs. Ld. DR has supported the order of the

AO. However, he did not contradict the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the

assessee.

3.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on

record. It is observed that the demand/ tax effect in the Revenue’s appeal in question is below Rs. 10.00 lacs . Under the powers vested by sec. 268A(1) of the I

T Act, CBDT issued CircularNo.21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015(F No.

279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt) instructing the authorities below

departmental appeal should not be filed before ITAT where the

demand/tax effect does not exceed Rs.10 lacs. The circular is specifically

mentioned to be applicable for all pending appeals.

3.1 Subject to some exceptions, it is further directed by CBDT that all the

departmental appeals pending before ITAT where the demand/tax effect is less than

10 lacs should be either withdrawn or not pressed by the departmental

representatives.

3 ITA No. 53/JP/2017 M/s Om Metals Infra Projects Ltd., Jaipur.

3.2 The present appeal is not covered by any exceptions mentioned in the said

CBDT circular. Since the tax demand in dispute in this departmental appeal is below

the limit set out by CBDT for the appeal the same is not maintainable in view of fore

going discussion. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable on

account of low tax effect.

4.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on Wednesday, the 07th day of June 2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ( HkkxpUn ½ ( dqy Hkkjr) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated: 07/06/2017 Pooja/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू

1.

The Appellant- Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, (TDS), Jaipur. 2. The Respondent – M/s Om Metals Infra Projects Ltd.,M.I. Road, Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 53/JP/2017)

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 268A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →