DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. ACG PAM MACHINES P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1479/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 October 2018AY 2008-092 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 agreed with the assessee's submission regarding the low tax effect. Both the assessee's representative and the Departmental Representative consented to this point.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order of the CIT(A) which had quashed a notice issued under Section 148. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below ₹20 Lacs, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular. Whether the CIT(A) erred in quashing the notice under Section 148.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON’BLE & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Ms. Niyanta Mehta
For Respondent: Shri Harkamol Sohi, Ms. Niyanta Mehta
Hearing: 09.10.2018Pronounced: 09.10.2018

O R D E R

PER C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai in Appeal No. CIT(A)-49/IT-289/2015-16 dated 30.12.2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal: -

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in quashing the notice u/s.148 by not appreciating that Explanation 1 to the proviso of section 147 clearly states that production of material from which material evidence could be with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure.

(A.Y:2008-09) M/s. ACG Pam Pac Machines Pvt. Ltd.,

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CJT(A) erred in quashing the notice u/s.148 by not appreciating that even out of materials which are already available on record, if subsequently officer finds reason to believe that there has been escapement of assessment, surely he can issue a notice under section 148 and such course will not amount to reviewing earlier assessment as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd. Vs. Jt.CIT(2012) 340 ITR 144(Mad.)"

3.

At the time of hearing, Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that tax effect on the issue in the present appeal is below ₹ 20 Lacs and in view of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11/07/2018 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt), the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable.

4.

Departmental Representative also agreed with the above submission of the Authorized Representative of the assessee. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue on account of low tax effect.

5.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order Pronounced in the Court at the close of the hearing on Tuesday, the 09th day of October, 2018.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →