ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S CONC SHADE CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, CHIKKAMANGALUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 298/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 November 2018AY 2009-103 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 both appeals was below Rs. 20 Lacs. Following CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2013-14. The assessee argued that the appeals were 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 appeals before the ITAT 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 – DR
For Respondent: Shri Ravishankar, Advocate
Hearing: 05.11.2018Pronounced: 05.11.2018

M/s. Conc Shade The Assistant Construction Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of Soorya Farm, Income Tax, vs. Halenahalli, Central Circle – 2 (3), Ramanahally Post, Bangalore. Chickamagalur. PAN: AAECC0493L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri G. Guruswamy, CIT – DR 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 Both these appeals are filed by the revenue which are directed against two separate orders of ld. CIT(A)-11, Bangalore both dated 24.11.2017 for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2013-14. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.

2.

The grounds raised

by the revenue for Assessment Year 2009-10 in are as under. “1. 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.

2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Cr(A) is correct in relying on the case of Singhad Technical Society case as the decision does not restrain the AO from making addition only on the incriminating material and it only refers that seized material should pertain to third person and ITA Nos. 298 & 302/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 3 terms it a condition precedent to initiate proceeding and not for finalization of assessment.

3. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the unexplained case deposit of Rs.11,94,150/- whereas it remains unsubstantiated and without satisfactory explanation.

4.

Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the estimated profit of Rs.43,482/- without appreciating the fact that books were not produced and case law relied is distinguished.”

3.

Similarly the grounds raised

by the revenue for Assessment Year 2013-14 in are as under. “1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the estimated profit of Rs.41,60,448/- without appreciating the fact that books were not produced and case law relied is distinguished.”

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

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned AR of the assessee and we also find that in these appeals, 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, these two appeals of the revenue are not maintainable. Accordingly, these two appeals of the revenue are dismissed because of low tax effect.

6. In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →