DCIT CIRCLE 1, DINDIGUL vs. N.PARVATHY TEXTILES, DINDIGUL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1763/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 December 2017AY 2012-133 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. This was based on a CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals, as the tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which had cancelled the reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) had held that the reopening was bad in law and the assessee was entitled to a deduction. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in these findings.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal due to monetary limits. Secondary issues involved the validity of reopening the assessment and eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IA,Section 139(1),Section 80AC,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 12.12.2017

आदेश / O R D E R

Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:-

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai dated 24.04.2017 in for the assessment year 2012-13 passed U/s. 250(6) r.w.s 143(3) & 147 of the Act. appeal:-

1.

The order of the CIT(A) is opposed to law on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

2.

The CIT(A) erred in holding that reopening is bad in law since it based on change in opinion when the statute permits the Assessing officer to reopen the assessment within four years from the end of the assessment year if he has a reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

3. The CIT(A) has erred in holding that while completing the assessment the Assessing officer was aware that the return was filed belatedly and thereafter had allowed deduction u/s.80IA and therefore the reopening of assessment is not permissible in law. The CIT(A) ought to have seen that there is no such discussion in the assessment order and hence ought not to have cancelled the entire assessment proceedings.

4. The CIT(A) has erred in holding that there was reasonable cause and the delay of 5 days was unavoidable due to the fact that the system was not functioning properly and therefore the assessee is entitle to deduction u/s.80IA.

5. The CIT(A) ought to have seen that as per section 80AC, in order to claim deduction u/s.80IA, the return of income shall be filed within the due date u/s.139(1) and since the above condition was not satisfied by the assessee, the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s.80IA and hence ought to have sustained the addition made by the assessing officer.

6.

For these and such other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing it is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer restored.

3.

At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted before us that the above mentioned appeal is not maintainable due to the Circular No.21/2013 dated 10.12.2015 issued by the CBDT with respect to monetary limit. Hence, it was pleaded that the appeal of the

4.

After hearing both sides we find merit in the submission of the Ld.AR. The CBDT has directed the Revenue not to file appeal before the Tribunal where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.10 lakhs. In the above mentioned appeal of the assessee the tax effect is less than Rs.10 lakhs. Therefore, we hereby dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable.

5.

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed in limini.

Order pronounced on the 12th December, 2017 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 80IA

All 1,796 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →