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

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.

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:

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

therefore dismiss the Cross Objection of the assessee being infructuous.

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

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

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