Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI P.K. BANSAL & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
PER AMARJIT SINGH, J.M.
The appeal by the Revenue and the cross objection by the
assessee are filed against the impugned order dated 14th August 2014,
2 Vidarbha Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd.
passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–III, Nagpur, for the
assessment year 2008–09.
ITA no.464/Nag./2014 – Revenue’s Appeal
The ground raised by the Revenue is reproduced below:–
(1) That the order of the learned Assessing Officer u/s. 153C / 143(3) is bad in law and on facts.
(2) That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 20,74,000/- as undisclosed investment in Agricultural land on the basis of previous year additions. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and the explanations offered alongwith evidence, the action of the Assessing Officer is not justified.
(3) That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in taking into consideration the agreement to sale found for Rs. 56,64,945/– and Rs. 32,60,400/- without appreciating that the agreements are fake agreement to impress the purchaser.
(4) That the learned Assessing Officer should have inquired about the same from the executor of the above documents.
(5) That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in not taking into consideration the various agreements of sale of the same village by various person into consideration to arrive at the real market value.
(6) That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act.
At the very outset, we noted that in this case the tax effect on
the income under dispute is less than ` 10 lakh. We further noted that
the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th
December, 2015 file no.279 of Misc. 142/2007–ITJ(PT) has issued the
direction in supersession of the Instruction No.5/2014 dated 10th July
3 Vidarbha Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd.
2014, in pursuance with the power interested under section 268A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961, that no appeal should be filed before this
Tribunal in case tax effect does not exceed ` 10 lakh. The “tax effect”
in this regard means the difference between the tax on the total
income assessed and the tax that what have been chargeable had
such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of
issues against which appeal is intended to be filed. This circular further
states that tax will not include any interest thereon the chargeability of
interest itself is in dispute. We further noted that under paragraph 10
which is reproduced as under, it has been mentioned in the circular
that this instruction will apply even to the pending appeals.
“10. This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”
In the impugned case, we noted that the tax effect on the issue
under dispute does not exceed ` 10 lakh. In view of this fact, as per
the instruction, the Revenue is not supposed to press the appeal. We,
therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue in limine without
going into the merits of the case, as, in our opinion, the circulars
issued by CBDT are binding on the Departmental Officers in view of
the provision of section 268A(1) of the Act. The said view has been
4 Vidarbha Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd.
taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Navneet Lal Zaveri v/s
AAC, 56 ITR 198 (SC). We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal filed by the
Revenue.
In the result, Revenue’s appeal is hereby ordered to be
dismissed.
C.O. no.19/Nag./2015 – Assessee’s Cross Objection
Learned Counsel for assessee submitted before us that he did not
wish to press this cross objection to which the learned Departmental
Representative has not expressed any objection. Consequently, the
cross objection filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is hereby
ordered to be dismissed.
To sum up, Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are
dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.06.2017
Sd/- Sd/- P.K. BANSAL AMARJIT SINGH VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
NAGPUR, DATED: 21.06.2017
5 Vidarbha Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd.
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Nagpur City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; (6) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Nagpur