ACIT, JAIPUR vs. M/S EURO JEWELS, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 244/JPR/2012Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 March 2017AY 2004-054 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2016. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s deletion of a trading addition of Rs. 16,66,543/-. The assessee also filed a cross-objection challenging a sustained trading addition of Rs. 50,000/-.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. The secondary issue concerned the validity of a trading addition sustained by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 244/JP/2012

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 244/JP/2012
C.O. No. 32/JP/2012

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.

These are two appeal and cross objection filed by the revenue and assessee

respectively against the order of ld. CIT (A)-III, Jaipur dated 19.12.2011 pertaining

to assessment year 2004-05. The ground of revenue’s appeal and grounds of the

assessee’s Cross Objection are as under :-

2 ITA No. 244/JP/2012 & C.O. No. 32/JP/2012 M/s. Euro Jewels, Jaipur.

Ground in Revenue’s appeal :

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) is justified in giving the relief of Rs. 16,66,543/- on account of trading addition to the assessee ignoring the decision of ITAT in the case of M/. Nand Kishore Meghraj.”

Ground in Assessee’s C.O. :

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the results being fair and reasonable, the assessee having shown better Gross Profit Rate and better results, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in sustaining a sump sum trading addition of Rs. 50,000/- when no lsuch estimation was required to be made by him.

1.1. That the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) having followed the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Gotan Khanij Udyog (256 ITR 243), he having been satisfied that no addition u/s 143(3) as such cannot be made but still chose to sustain an addition of Rs. 50,000/- which is unjustified, bad in law, without evidence, contrary to the material on record and deserves to be deleted.

2.

That the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is correct and justified in deleting the Trading addition to the extent of Rs. 16,66,543/-.”

2.

At the outset, it is contended on behalf of the assessee that the appeal filed

by the revenue is not maintainable on account of low tax effect.

2.1. On the contrary, ld. D/R opposed the submissions.

2.2. After hearing both the parties, we noted that the appeal filed by the revenue

relate to deletion of addition of Rs. 16,66,543/-. The tax effect in this case is less

than Rs. 10 lacs. When the tax effect in the appeal of the department is less than

Rs. 10 lacs then the same is not maintainable in view of the CBDT Circular No. 21/2016 [F. No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt)] dated 10th December, 2015. As per

section 268A if tax effect is less than Rs.10 lacs then appeal of department is not

3 ITA No. 244/JP/2012 & C.O. No. 32/JP/2012 M/s. Euro Jewels, Jaipur.

maintainable. Moreover, we do not find any exception in the appeal filed by the

revenue as prescribed in the CBDT Circular referred above. Accordingly the appeal of

the Department is dismissed in limine.

C.O. No. 32/JP/2012:

3.

Since the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable in view of the CBDT Circular No. 21/2016 [F. No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt)] dated 10th

December, 2015, the Cross Objection of the assessee has become infructuous. We

therefore dismiss the Cross Objection of the assessee being infructuous.

4.

In the result, appeals of the revenue as well as of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15 /03/2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ( dqy Hkkjr) ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 15 /03/2017. d/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू

1.

The Appellant- The ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur. 2. The Respondent- M/s. Euro Jewels, Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 244 & C.O. No. 32/JP/2012) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

4 ITA No. 244/JP/2012 & C.O. No. 32/JP/2012 M/s. Euro Jewels, Jaipur.

More judgments on Section 268A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →