ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA vs. DR.GURVINDER SINGH RANDHAWA, PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1404/CHANDI/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 July 2018AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lacs specified by the CBDT circular. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this circular.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal concerned the rejection of books of account and additions made by the AO on account of unaccounted purchases and surgeries.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT based on the tax effect and CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH’A’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri. Tej Mohan Singh
For Respondent: Shri. Yoginder Mittal
Hearing: 12/07/2018Pronounced: 17/07/2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1404/Chd/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10

The Asst. CIT Vs. Dr. Gurvinder Singh Randhawa Circle, Patiala # 46, Dhaliwal colony, Patiala

PAN No. ABKPR1197G

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Shri. Tej Mohan Singh Revenue By : Shri. Yoginder Mittal

Date of hearing : 12/07/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 17/07/2018

ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M:

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Patiala dt. 25/10/2016.

2.

In the present appeal the Revenue has raised the following grounds :

1.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not upholding the rejection of books of account u/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,29,000/- made by the AO on account of unaccounted purchases and Rs. 28,75,000/- on account of unaccounted surgeries, totaling to Rs. 37,04,000/-. 3. It is prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO restored. 3. According to Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11/07/2018, the CBDT in

supersession of earlier instructions has directed that department’s appeals

before ITAT shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the

monetary limit of Rs. 20 lacs. The tax will not include any interest thereon. It is

further clarified that if in the case of an assessee, disputed issues arise in more

than one assessment year, appeal can be filed in respect of such assessment

year or years in which the tax effect in respect of disputed issues exceeds the

monetary limit so specified.

4.

Admittedly, in the departmental appeal, the tax effect is less than Rs. 20

lacs, therefore, departmental appeal is not maintainable. The Ld. DR could not

bring to our notice any exceptions mentioned in the said Circular.

5.

In view of the above, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated : 17/07/2018

AG Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR

More judgments on Section 145(3)

All 3,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →