ITO, WD-23(2), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY vs. M/S SHREEHARI BASTRALAYA, HOOGHLY
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
What were the facts?
During a survey operation, a discrepancy was found in the stock valuation of M/s. Shreehari Bastralaya. The Revenue appealed the deletion of this addition by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of stock discrepancy found during a survey. The primary reason for dismissal was the low tax effect of the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A(SMC
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata dated 07.09.2015 for the assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:- (1) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the entire addition made on account of discrepancy found on physical verification of stock during the course of survey operation U/s 133(A) in spite of the fact -
(i) that the valuation of stock had been rightly quantified in presence of assessee out of his sale register, purchase register & bills and vouchers maintained by assessee or found during the course of survey and the valuation of stock was computed in presence of assessee which was accepted and confirmed by the assessee as per statement recorded at the time of survey.
./2015 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 3
(ii) that the assessee had failed to reconcile the stock figure at the time of hearing on 19.09.2008 and accepted such discrepancy of stock. Again during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee had confirmed and accepted the discrepancy vide his submission dated 09.12.2011.
(iii) that the assessee failed to produce stock register during the course of survey as no stock register was ever maintained by the assessee and the assessee was in practice to value the stock at the end of the year as admitted in statement recorded during the course of survey.
(iv) that the fresh submission of assessee on item wise purchase and sale which was not produced by the assessee at any time during survey and assessment proceedings, had been given cognisance before deleting the addition made by AD on account of discrepancy of stock found as discussed above.
(2) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the entire addition made on account of discrepancy regarding payment of partner's remuneration in absence of any categorical noting in the partnership deed regarding working partners remuneration ignoring the CBDT circular No. 739 Dt. 25/03/1996.
2 As pointed out by the ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset, the tax effect involved in this appeal of the Revenue is less than the revised monetary limit recently fixed by the CBDT vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 at Rs.10,00,000/- for filing the appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal and this position clearly evident from the grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal is not disputed even by the ld. D.R. In Circular No. 21/2015 (supra) recently issued by the CBDT, the monetary limit for filing the appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal has been increased to Rs.10,00,000/- and as clarified in the said Circular, the said monetary limit is applicable retrospectively even to the appeals pending before the Tribunal. The CBDT has also instructed that such pending appeals below this specified tax limit of Rs.10,00,000/- may be withdrawn/ not pressed. Keeping in view the instruction given by the CBDT vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, which is squarely ./2015 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 3 of 3 applicable in the present case, the appeal filed by the Revenue in this case is treated as withdrawn/not pressed and dismissed accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on July 27, 2016.
More judgments on Section 133A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Amr Infrastructures, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), HyderabadITA 818/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Vikaskumar Macwan, Nadiad vs Dc/ACIT Central Circle 3, VadodaraITA 2022/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026