ACIT, CHENNAI vs. TAJ MADRAS FLIGHT KITCHEN PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the CBDT prescribed limit. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal remitted the issue of disallowance of expenses back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against an order concerning assessment year 2007-08. The assessee also appealed a disallowance of expenses claimed as repairs and maintenance due to lack of vouchers. The Revenue's appeal had a tax effect below the prescribed limit.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. Whether the disallowance of expenses for lack of vouchers should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश / O R D E R
PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The Revenue and the assessee filed the above appeals against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai in
While hearing the appeal, the Ld.AR submitted that since the tax effect involved with the Revenue’s appeal is below the limit prescribed by the Board Circular, the Revenue cannot pursue this appeal. The Ld.DR did not counter the AR’s plea.
We find that the tax effect, in Revenue’s appeal is less than Rs. 20 lakhs. The CBDT in its Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 instructed its officers to withdraw all the appeals pending before the ITAT where the tax effect is less than Rs. 20 lakhs. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that this circular of CBDT is binding on the officers of the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed further in its appeal. Accordingly, the appeal in stands dismissed.
On assessee’s appeal in the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of catering especially to various airlines. While making the assessment for the assessment year 2007-08, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.62,40,458/- i.e., 20% of Rs.3,12,02,288/-, the expenditure claimed
3 & 1705/Chny/2014 under the head ‘repairs and maintenance of building, machinery and others’, as these expenses were not supported by vouchers. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) called for a remand report. During the remand proceedings, the assessee was required to produce all vouchers and evidences for the claim. The assessee submitted that since the evidence relate to various years, requested some time to produce them. Since the assessee did not produce any evidences at all, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed this ground. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal.
The Ld.AR submitted that since the assessee has collected all the particulars through which the impugned claim can be substantiated before the lower authorities, it is pleaded that these issues may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. The Ld.DR did not oppose such plea.
We heard the rival submissions. Since, the assessee pleads that the assessee has collected all the material by which it can substantiate its claim before the lower authorities, we deem it fit to remit this issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. The assessee shall lay all the material in support of its contention
4 & 1705/Chny/2014 before the Assessing Officer and shall comply with the requirements of the Assessing Officer in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer is free to conduct appropriate enquiry as deemed fit. However, he shall furnish due opportunity to the assessee against the material, if any, to be used against it and then decide the issues in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
To sum up, the appeal of the Revenue in is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on the 30th July, 2019 at Chennai.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
