THE ACIT 4(1), INDORE vs. DURGESH SHUKLA, INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 410/IND/2022Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 March 2023Bench: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. The case did not fall under any exceptions mentioned in the circulars.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 69,381/- made by the AO. The appeal arose from an order passed under Section 143(1) by CPC Bangalore. The tax effect was Rs. 22,895/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit and does not fall under any exceptions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE ‘SMC’ BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO

Hearing: 01.03.2023Pronounced: 22.03.2023

O R D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 4th October, 2022 of CIT(A) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) arising from order passed under Section 143(1) CPC Bangalore for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

2.

None has appeared on behalf of the respondent/assessee when this appeal was called for hearing despite the notices issued. Since, the tax effect in the Revenue’s appeal is not more than the monetary limit for filing the appeal prescribed by the CBDT, Circular No. 3 of 2018 which was revised and enhanced by Circular dated 08.08.2019 therefore, this appeal was taken up for hearing and disposal ex-parte.

3.

I have heard the learned DR and carefully perused the relevant material on records. The revenue has challenged the order Assessment Year. 2018-19 Sh. Durgesh Shukla of the CIT(A) in respect of the deletion of the addition of Rs. 69,381/- made by the AO under Section 36(1)(va) and tax effect of the same is Rs. 22,895/-. Since, this appeal is arising from the processing of CPC Bangalore under Section 143(1) therefore, this case does not fall in any of the exceptions prescribed in Para 10 of Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 even otherwise, the revenue has not claimed that this case fall under any of the exceptions. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable due to the tax effect not exceeding the monetary limit prescribed in Circular No. 3 / 2018 as well as the revised monetary limit vide press release dated 08.08.2019 and consequently liable to be dismissed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being not maintainable due to low tax effect. Order pronounced on 22/03/2023 as per Rule 34 (4) of I.T.A.T. Rules, 1963.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →