THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BARODA vs. SHRI PUSHPAKSINGH D. CHAVAN, BARODA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2767/AHD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 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 held that the Revenue's appeal was liable to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Instruction No. 21 of 2015. This instruction prohibits filing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 10 lakhs, and it applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13. The appeal challenged additions made to the assessee's income, including cash deposits and expenses. The tax effect of these additions was less than Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect, in light of CBDT instructions. Whether the CBDT instructions regarding appeal filing limits are applicable retrospectively.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘B’

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA

For Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR
Hearing: 04/12/2017

आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Revenue is in appeal against the order of ld.CIT(A)—5, Baroda dated 15.6.2015 passed for the Asstt.Year 2012-13.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing the ld.DR and considering the material available on record.

ITA No.2767/Ahd/2015 2 3. The Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the ld.CIT(A) in allowing claim of the assessee as set out in the grounds of appeal.

4.

We noticed from grounds of appeal that the Revenue has challenged two additions viz. addition of cash deposits u/s.68 of Rs.8,28,513/- and addition of expenses of Rs.19,16,922/-, and therefore, tax implication on the impugned additions would be less than Rs.10 lakhs. If that is so, appeal of the Revenue is liable to be rejected in limine in view of recent CBDT restricting filing of appeal by the Revenue where tax effect is below Rs.10.00 lakhs. When we confronted this position to the ld.DR, he did not contest, rather left to the Tribunal to decide the issue in accordance with law.

5.

We have heard ld.DR and gone through the record and the impugned orders. We find that appeal of the Revenue, which is filed on 11.4.2014 is hit by recent CBDT instruction no.21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015 whereby the Board has prohibited its subordinate authorities from filing of the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) where the tax effect by virtue of the relief given by the CIT(A) is less than Rs.10 lakhs. The instructions have been made applicable with retrospective effect, meaning thereby, these instructions are applicable on pending appeals also. In the present case, tax effect involved in the present disputed additions is less than Rs.10 lakhs. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed being treated to be filed in violation of the above CBDT Instruction. It is dismissed.

6.

It is further observed that on re-verification at the end of the AO, it came to the notice that tax effect is more or it falls within

ITA No.2767/Ahd/2015 3 the ambit of exception provided in the Instruction, then the Department will be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall of this order. Such application should be filed within limitation prescribed under the law.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect.

Order pronounced in the Court on 4th December, 2017.

Sd/- Sd/-

(N.K. BILLAIYA) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 04 /12/2017

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →