INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI GAUTHAM S VARAD, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1132/BANG/2014Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 January 2016AY 2001-023 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 held that Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals, was applicable. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptional circumstances were present, the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The tax effect involved in these appeals was less than Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Revenue's appeals were maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect and the applicability of the CBDT's circular on monetary limits for appeals.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal,JCIT(DR)
For Respondent: Shri S.Venkatesan, CA
Hearing: 06/01/2016Pronounced: 06/01/2016

These are appeals filed by Revenue directed against order dated 30/05/2014 of CIT(A)-LTU, Bangalore, for A. Ys. 2001-02 & 2002-03.

2.

When the appeals were taken up for hearing Ld. Counsel pointed out to the Ld. DR that tax effect involved in these & 1133/Bang/2014 Page 2 appeals was less than Rs.10 lakhs for the impugned assessment years and therefore by virtue of Circular No.21/2015, dt.10.12.2015, were below the limits laid down for filing appeals before this Tribunal.

3.

Ld. DR submitted that para 8 of the circular was not applicable in this case. Therefore he did not object to the application of the circular. However Ld DR stated that existence or not of any Revenue audit objections leading to the filing of the appeal needed to be ascertained.

4.

We have perused the orders and heard the contentions. Para 4 of the circular No.21/2015 (supra) is reproduced hereunder : “4. For this purpose, “tax effect” means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the issues against which appeal is intended to be filed (hereinafter referred to as “disputed issues”). However the tax will not include any interest thereon, except where chargeability of interest itself is in dispute. In case the chargeability of interest is the issue under dispute, the amount of interest shall be the tax effect. In cases where returned loss is reduced or assessed as income, the tax effect would include notional tax on disputed additions. In case of penalty orders, the tax effect will mean quantum of penalty deleted or reduced in the order to be appealed against.”

5.

The tax effect on the issues that is disputed by the Revenue is less than Rs.10 lakhs for the impugned assessment & 1133/Bang/2014 Page 3 years. Constitutional validity of any provisions of the Act or Rules nor the legality or vires of any Board order, Notification, Instruction or Circular was an issue before the lower authorities. Revenue has not brought to our notice anything to show that the appeal arose on an issue emanating from any Revenue Audit Objections accepted by the Department. Addition giving rise to the appeals does not relate to any undisclosed foreign assets / bank accounts. Thus we find that the circular No.21/ 2015 (supra) is squarely applicable in this case. However if Revenue, at a later stage find that appeal arise out of issues emanating from audit objection it will be free to file MP for recalling this order.

6.

With the above observations, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →