ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SURYAKANT V. AMBARWADIKAR, AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1220/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 October 2018AY 2011-125 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objection was consequently dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

During a survey, the Assessing Officer (AO) found unrecorded receipts and made additions to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) granted partial relief on one addition, leading to an appeal by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT based on the monetary limit set by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Kulkarni
For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Hearing: 08.10.2018Pronounced: 08.10.2018

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 1220/PUN/2016
C.O. No. 50/PUN/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश / ORDER

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :

These are the Cross appeals filed by the Revenue and the Assessee

involving A.Y. 2011-12. Revenue filed the main appeal ITA No.

1220/PUN/2016 and assessee filed the Cross Objection No.

50/PUN/2018. They are filed against the order of CIT(A)-2,

Aurangabad, Pune dated 17-03-2016.

We shall first take up the appeal of the Revenue.

ITA No.1220/PUN/2016 – By Revenue A.Y. 2011-12

2.

Grounds raised by the Revenue are extracted here as under :

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A), Aurangabad was correct in adopting the G.P. @42.97% of such unrecorded receipts to the tune of Rs.73,66,041/- found during the course of survey action. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(A)- 2, Aurangabad may be vacated and the order of the AO may be restored. 3. On the facts and circumstances the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal.”

3.

Briefly stated relevant facts of the case include that the assessee

is an individual and derives income from the proprietary concerns M/s.

Surya Lawns and M/s. Garden Court Bar and Restaurant. Assessee

filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.21,66,193/-.

There was survey u/s.133A of the Act in the Ambarwadikar group of

cases. Various books of account and incriminating documents were

impounded in the case of the assessee. AO noticed certain discrepancies

3 ITA No.1220/PUN/2016 & Co No. 50/PUN/2018 M/s. Suryakant V. Ambarwadikar

in the actual receipts and the return of income filed in respect of M/s.

Surya Lawns and M/s. Garden Court Bar & Restaurant. At the end of

the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act, the AO made addition

of difference in both the concerns mentioned above as undisclosed

income (Rs.73,66,041 + Rs.66,62,066). AO also made addition of

Rs.8,68,239/- on account of electricity charges. In the First Appellate

proceedings, the CIT(A) gave part relief on the addition of Rs.73,66,041/-

on account of recorded receipts of M/s. Garden Court Bar & Restaurant.

However, he confirmed the other two additions made by the AO.

4.

Aggrieved with the part relief given by the CIT(A), the Revenue is in

appeal before us with the grounds extracted above.

5.

At the outset, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the appeal

filed by the Department is liable to be dismissed on account of low tax

effect. The Ld. AR pointed that as per CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated

11th July, 2018, the monetary limit for filing of appeal by the Department

before the Tribunal is Rs.20 Lakhs, therefore, the appeal filed by the

Department is not maintainable.

6.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue defended the order

of the AO and prayed for reversing the findings of the CIT(A) in the

appeals. However, the Ld. DR fairly admitted that the tax effect in the

present appeal filed by the Department is less than Rs.20 Lakhs.

7.

Both sides are heard. On going through the facts of the case and

the orders of the Revenue, we find the total tax effect involved in the

present appeal works out to Rs.11,98,362/-, which is below 20 lakhs.

The CBDT circular No.3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 raised the monetary

4 ITA No.1220/PUN/2016 & Co No. 50/PUN/2018 M/s. Suryakant V. Ambarwadikar

limit of tax effect for filing of appeal by the Department before the

Tribunal to Rs.20 Lakhs. The circular applies to the pending appeals of

the Department before the Tribunal too. Thus, in view of the CBDT

circular, we are of the opinion that the present appeal of the Revenue is

liable to be dismissed on account of low tax effect without going into the

merits of the case.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

We shall now take up the cross objection filed by the assessee.

CO No. 50/PUN/2018 A.Y. 2011-12

9.

Since the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not-maintainable

on account of low tax effect, the cross objection filed by the assessee

becomes infructuous. As such, the cross objection of the assessee is

dismissed as academic or infructuous.

10.

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed.

11.

To sum up, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross

objection of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced on 08th day of October, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/-

(िवकास अव�थी /VIKAS AWASTHY) (डी. क�णाकरा राव/D. KARUNAKARA RAO) �ाियक सद�/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; िदनांक / Dated : 08th October, 2018. Satish

5 ITA No.1220/PUN/2016 & Co No. 50/PUN/2018 M/s. Suryakant V. Ambarwadikar

आदेश की 'ितिलिप अ)ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad 4. The Pr.CIT-2, Aurangabad िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” ब"च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड% फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →