Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA & SHRI LALIET KUMAR
M/s. Maruthi Transformers The Assistant Manufacturing Co., Commissioner of Income Sy.No. 120/1, Kodathi Gate, Tax, vs. Mullur Road, Circle – 4 (2) (1), Sarjapura Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 035. PAN: AABFM8874F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Dr. Vinod Sharma, JCIT (DR) Respondent by : None Date of hearing : 31.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 O R D E R
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the revenue and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-9, Bangalore dated 06.09.2017for Assessment Year 2007-08.
The grounds raised
by the revenue are as under. “1. The Order of the Ld.CIT (A) is opposed to the law and facts of the case.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 221 of the IT Act amounting to Rs. 18,84,475/-
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) erred in law in deleting the additions made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I T Act, without appreciating the applicability of Sec. 194C in the original order.
4. The decision of original demand for which the penalty u/s 221 of the Act levied has been challenged in ITAT in for the AY 2007-08
5. The issue regarding "payable" occurring in section 40(a)(ia) was already settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Palam Gas Service (81 Taxmann.com 43(SC)(2017). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that word "payable" occurring in section Page 2 of 2 40(a)(ia) not only covers cases where amount is yet to be paid but also those cases where amount has actually been paid.
For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT (A) in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete any of the grounds that may be urged.”
None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of notice. Hence the appeal was heard ex-parte qua the assessee. It was pointed out by the bench to the ld. DR of revenue that tax effect in the present case is below Rs. 20 Lakhs and therefore, the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable as per recent CBDT instructions as per Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. In reply, the ld. DR of revenue had nothing to say. In view of above discussion, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable because of low tax effect.
In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the date of hearing on conclusion of the hearing.