ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. POWERCRAFT ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD., KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2608/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 November 2018AY 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 of the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Revenue can seek restoration if exceptions in the circular apply.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) which deleted an addition made on account of unproved purchases. The tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 20 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue should be dismissed due to low tax effect as per the CBDT circular, without going into the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Kulkarni
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

आदेश / ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :

The appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur dated 29-09-2016 for the assessment year 2010-11.

2 ITA No. 2608/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2010-11

2.

Shri M.K. Kulkarni appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the appeal of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed on account of low tax effect in terms of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, dated 11-07-2018. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed working of tax effect involved. As per the working sheet furnished by the ld. Counsel the total tax effect including surcharge is Rs.13,33,300/-.

3.

Shri Pankaj Garg representing the Department fairly admitted that in the present appeal by the Department tax effect is less than Rs.20 Lakhs.

4.

Both sides heard. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in deleting the addition made on account of unproved purchases Rs.38,72,036/- u/s. 69C of the Act. Undisputedly, the tax effect involved in appeal is less than the monetary limit prescribed by the recent CBDT Circular for filing of appeals before the Tribunal by the Department. The CBDT vide Circular No. 3/2018, dated 11-07-2018 has raised the monetary limit of tax effect for filing of appeals by the Department before the Tribunal to Rs.20 lakhs. The Circular applies to the appeals to be filed by the Department in future as well as the appeals pending before the Tribunal. Without going into merit of the issues raised in the appeal, in view of the CBDT Circular the present appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect.

5.

Before parting, we clarify here that the Revenue shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of appeal, with the requisite material

3 ITA No. 2608/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2010-11

to show that the appeal is protected by the exceptions prescribed in Para 10 of the Circular (supra).

6.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Monday, the 12th day of November, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (अननऱ चतुवेदी / Anil Chaturvedi) (ववकास अवस्थी / Vikas Awasthy) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 12th November, 2018 RK आदेश की प्रनतलऱवऩ अग्रेवर्त / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur 3. प्रधान आयकर आयुक्त / The Pr. CIT-II, Kolhapur 4. ववभागीय प्रनतननधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “बी” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रनत // True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

ननजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →