ITO, WARD-3, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. AMAN COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS, SRIGANGANAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 139/JODH/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 July 2018AY 2008-093 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. This was based on the low tax effect of the deleted additions, which fell below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made to the assessee's income. These additions pertained to business income from plot sales, disallowance of expenses, forfeiture of advance deposits, and cash book discrepancies.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect, and the correctness of the CIT(A)'s deletion of various additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(3),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH (SMC

Before: SHRI R.C. SHARMA

Hearing: 16/07/2018

PER: R.C. SHARMA, AM

This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of

the CIT(A), Bikaner dated 14/11/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09 in the

matter of order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

[hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short]. The grounds

raised by the revenue in appeal are reproduced as under:

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,94,056/- made on account of business income from selling of plots.

2 ITA 139/Jodh/2018 ITO, Ward-3, Shri Ganganagar Vs. M/s Aman Colonizers & Developers, Sriganganagar 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of 7,69,990/- made on account of disallowance of expenses u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961.

3.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,28,000/- made on account of forfeiture of amount from the person who had made advance deposits for purchase of plots.

4.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,69,400/- made on account of difference amount credit in cash book.”

2.

I have gone through the orders of authorities below and found that tax

effect in respect of additions deleted by CIT(A) is below Rs. 20 lacs,

accordingly in term of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 this

appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18/07/2018.

Sd/- [R.C. SHARMA] Accountant Member Dated : 18/07/2018 *Ganesh Kumar Copy to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR

3 ITA 139/Jodh/2018 ITO, Ward-3, Shri Ganganagar Vs. M/s Aman Colonizers & Developers, Sriganganagar 6. Guard File (ITA No. 139/Jodh/2018)

Assistant Registrar Jodhpur Bench

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →