Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. 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
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.
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.
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.”
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.