ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(5), CHENNAI vs. WIN POWER ENGINEERING, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1513/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 August 2017AY 2007-082 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 because the Departmental Representative failed to produce the Revenue Audit Objection. Without this objection, the Revenue could not demonstrate how it fell under the exemption set out in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of ₹10,17,376 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 did not apply due to a Revenue Audit Objection.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting an addition under Section 36(1)(vii), considering the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and the absence of a Revenue Audit Objection.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ (SMC

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]

आदेश / O R D E R

1.

Revenue in this appeal is aggrieved that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted an addition of �10,17,376/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s. 36(1) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’).

ITA No.1513/Mds/2017. :- 2 -:

2.

Grounds raised by the Revenue state that CBDT Circular No.21/2015, dated 10th December, 2015 does not apply since Revenue Audit Objection was accepted by the Department. When Bench enquired with the ld. Departmental Representative what was the Revenue Audit Objection, ld. Departmental Representative replied that he was unable to place hands on the objection. Since Revenue is unable to show how it fell under the exemption set out in Circular No.21/2015, I am of the opinion that the appeal cannot survive. However, if the Revenue able to find the Revenue audit objections if any, in future, it can file a petition for recalling the order.

3.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(vii)

All 1,429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(vii) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →