DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI AVTARSINGH KHURANA, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3464/AHD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 August 2017AY 2007-082 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 appeals filed by the Assessing Officer. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates dismissal of appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 10,00,000.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer appealed the deletion of penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2007-08 and 2005-06. The penalties were imposed for alleged failure to disclose true income and book profit.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer should be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT guidelines.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD

I.T.A. Nos.3464 & 3466/Ahd/2015 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2005-06 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM] I.T.A. Nos.3464 & 3466/Ahd/2015 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, ....................…Appellant Circle – 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad. Vs. Avtarsingh Khurana, ..........……. Respondent 75, Safal Vihan, Near Eklavya School, Sarkhej Sanand Road, Ahmedabad – 380 058. [PAN: AFHPK 5758 B] Appearances by: Deepak Suthria for the appellant P.M. Mehta & G.M. Thakar for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing: 21.08.2017 Date of pronouncing the order: 22.08.2017 O R D E R

1.

By way of these appeals, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of the two separate orders, both dated 21.09.2015, passed by the learned CIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad for the assessment years 2007-08 & 2005-06, on the following grounds :- Assessment Year: 2007-08:- “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.6,74,857/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above since the assessee has failed to disclose his true income/book profit. . 3. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored to the above extent.”

I.T.A. Nos.3464 & 3466/Ahd/2015 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2005-06 Page 2 of 2 Assessment Year: 2005-06:- “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.6,46,374/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above since the assessee has failed to disclose his true income/book profit. . 3. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored to the above extent.”

2.

I have noticed that the tax effect involved in these appeals is less than Rs.10,00,000/-. In view of this undisputed fact and in the light of CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015, I am of the considered view that these appeals are liable to be dismissed as withdrawn for the simple reason that tax effect involved in these appeals is less than Rs.10,00,000/-.

3.

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 22nd day of August 2017. Sd/- Pramod Kumar (Accountant Member) Dated: Ahmedabad, the 22nd day of August, 2017. Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) Guard File

By order

Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →