DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA vs. ALIKRAFT ENGINEERS PVT LTD, VADODARA GUJARAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 975/AHD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 May 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)3 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 Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, accepting the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue can seek restoration if the circular is inapplicable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 33,67,500/- made on account of share valuation. The assessee argued that the appeal was hit by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 due to low tax effect.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, and whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on share valuation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.04.2024Pronounced: 14.05.2024

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order 05.10.2023 passed for A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.33,67,500/- made by the AO on account of the difference between the value of the share worked out in the valuation report at Rs.80/- and the fair market value worked out at Rs.12.65/- by applying the formula (A-L) X (PV)/(PE)? 2. Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.33,67,500/- made by the AO, ignoring the findings of the AO that the valuation report has been submitted by the same Accountant who has also audited the accounts of the company u/s 44AB of the Act, which is contrary to provisions of the Act as well as Rule 11UA of the Income Tax and also that future projections adopted by the Accountant are devoid of any basis?

DCIT vs. Alikraft Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2014-15 - 2–

3.

The appellant craves leave to add, modify, amend or alter any grounds of appeal

at the time of, or before, the hearing of appeal. It is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) on the above issuers be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”

3. At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the Ld. AR for the assessee that appeal filed by the Revenue is hit by recently issued CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 revising the previous thresholds pertaining to tax effects. 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 now revised at Rs.50 Lakhs. In the instant case, the tax effect on the disputed issues raised by the Revenue is stated to be not exceeding Rs.50 lakhs and therefore appeal of the Revenue is required to be dismissed in limine.

4.

The Learned DR for the Revenue fairly admitted the applicability of the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. 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.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 14/05/2024

More judgments on Section 44AB

All 2,486 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →