ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI K G RAJESH, CHIKKAMANGALUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 295/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 November 2018AY 2010-112 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 found that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rs. 20 Lacs. Therefore, following CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessee's counsel argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT instructions.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the revenue's appeal due to low tax effect as per CBDT instructions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not Applicable

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri G. Guruswamy, CIT-DRP
For Respondent: Shri Ravishankar, Advocate
Hearing: 05.11.2018Pronounced: 05.11.2018

The Assistant Shri K.G. Rajesh, Commissioner of Income Koduvalli Village, Tax, vs. Anoor Post, Central Circle – 2 (3), Chickamagalur. PAN: ADCPR9558B Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri G. Guruswamy, CIT-DRP Respondent by : Shri Ravishankar, Advocate Date of hearing : 05.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 05.11.2018 O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the revenue and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-11, Bangalore dated 24.11.2017 for Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

The grounds raised

by the revenue are as under. “1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in considering six years from date of reopening i.e. 15.09.2014 when the Act provided from date of search.

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on the order of Karnataka High Court in the case of IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd. when the assessee has participated in the proceedings and had not challenged issue of notices as decided by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Safetag International Pvt. Ltd. in 332 ITR 622 and Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Vijyabhai N Chandrani in 357 ITR 713.

3. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is correct in deleting the addition of agricultural Income without appreciating the fact that no evidences were produced before the AO and the AO was not afforded an opportunity in accordance with Rule 46A.

4. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is correct in deleting the addition of unexplained credit without appreciating the fact that no evidence was produced before the AO and the AO was not afforded an opportunity in accordance with Rule 46A.

5. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs.4,17,800/- on account Page 2 of 2 of unexplained credit without appreciating the fact on record.

6.

Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of unexplained credit without appreciating the facts on the record and solely relying on case law which is not relevant to the fact of the case.”

3.

At the very outset, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that in this appeal, the tax effect is below Rs. 20 Lacs and therefore, as per the recent CBDT instructions as per Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, this appeal of the revenue is not maintainable. Learned DR of the revenue had nothing to say.

4.

We have considered the submissions of the learned AR of the assessee and we also find that in this appeal, the tax effect is below Rs. 20 Lacs and therefore, as per the recent CBDT instructions as per Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, this appeal of the revenue is not maintainable. Accordingly, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed because of low tax effect.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →