THE ITO, WARD-11(4), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI DIVYARAJ MADANLAL GUPTA, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 613/AHD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 December 2017AY 2010-113 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 appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which mandates dismissal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain monetary limit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition made on account of stock variation. The addition was made under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable in light of CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and the tax effect of the disputed issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

Hearing: 11/12/2017

आदेश / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XVI, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] dated 16/12/2013 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11.

2.

The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as under:-

ITA No.613/Ahd/2014 ITO vs.Shri Divyaraj Madanlal Gupta Asst.Year – 2010-11 - 2 - (1) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.25,77,836/- made by the AO on account of u/s.69B of the IT Act as variation in stock noted in statement to bank vij a vij book value without appreciating the facts of the case discussed in the assessment order by the AO.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee.

4.

We find that the appeal filed by the Revenue is hit by CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10/12/2015. As per aforesaid Circular, all pending appeals filed by Revenue are liable to be dismissed as a measure for reducing litigation where the tax effect does not exceed the prescribed monetary limit which is Rs.10 lakhs. In the instant case, the tax effect on the disputed issue raised by the Revenue is stated to be less Rs.10 lakhs and therefore appeal of the Revenue is required to be dismissed in limine.

5.

The Ld.DR for the Revenue fairly admitted the applicability of the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015. Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it will be open to the Revenue to seek restoration of its appeal on showing inapplicability of the aforesaid CBDT Circular in any manner.

ITA No.613/Ahd/2014 ITO vs.Shri Divyaraj Madanlal Gupta Asst.Year – 2010-11 - 3 - 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 13 / 12 /2017

Sd/- Sd/- (एस.एस.गोदारा) (�द�प कुमार के�डया) �या�यक सद�य लेखा सद�य ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) ( S.S. GODARA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 13/ 12 /2017 ट�.सी.नायर, व.�न.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-XVI, Ahmedabad �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation ..12.12.2017 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member …12.12.2017 3. Other Member… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S…………….. 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement…… 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S…….13.12.17 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk…………………13.12.17 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order………………

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →