THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SREE SHIVALINGESHWARA ARECANUT TRADERS

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) CENTRAL CIRCLE C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE NO.55/1, SHILPASHREE VIDHYARANYA COMPLEX VISHVESHWARANAGAR MYSURU - 570 008. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V., ADVOCATE) AND:

The appeal was admitted on 06.09.2022 to examine the questions of law raised by the appellants which are extracted below:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal order can be said as perverse in nature in holding that the conditions prescribed for passing order under section 263 of the Act are not satisfied when the CIT has given elaborate findings to demonstrate that the order passed by assessing authority was prejudicial as well as erroneous order"?

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing appeal preferred by assessee by setting aside order passed under section 263 of the Act ignoring that assessing authority had not derived gross profits from unaccounted sales and purchases recorded in seized documents and

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order setting aside order passed under section 263 of the Act holding that the assessing authority was correct in determining the unaccented income on the basis of GP rate in disclosed transactions as per regular books of accounts ignoring findings of Commissioner of Income Tax"?.

This appeal was filed on 23.05.2022 and Monetary value involved is Rs.29,29,383/-. Subsequent to filing of the appeal, Circular bearing No.5/2024 [F.No.279/Misc.142/2007- ITJ(PT.)] dated 15.3.2024 is issued under Section 265(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 prescribing monetary limit and the exceptions to prefer an appeal before the High Court.

In view of the above Circular, the above appeal would not be maintainable since monetary value involved in this appeal is less than rupees one crore. Therefore, the above appeal would not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.

In view of the above, the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are kept open to be considered in an appropriate case.