ITO, WARD-1(1), BIKANER vs. SMT. USHA DEVI CHAYAL, BIKANER.

PDF · subscribers
ITA 214/JODH/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 July 2018AY 2014-153 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, citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The tax effect of the deleted additions was below Rs. 20 lakhs, making the appeal ineligible for further consideration.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition made under Section 56(2)(vii) concerning land purchased by the assessee. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition of Rs. 38,80,501/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition under Section 56(2)(vii) for land purchase. The appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii),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: 18/07/2018

PER: R.C. SHARMA, AM

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

CIT(A), Bikaner dated 10/01/2018 for the A.Y. 2014-15 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. 38,80,501/- made by

the AO u/s 56(2)(vii) of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of land purchased by the assessee within the 8 Kms of Municipal Limit. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that section 56(2)(vii) use the term “any immovable property” which is not defined and as to whether it would cover all land/building irrespective of capital assets/trading assets/agricultural land etc.” 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in considering the addition evidence produced during appellate proceedings without giving opportunity being heard to the AO in view of the Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule,1 962.”

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 19/07/2018.

Sd/- [R.C. SHARMA] Accountant Member Dated : 19/07/2018 A/N Copy to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR 6. Guard File (ITA No. 214/Jodh/2018) Assistant Registrar Jodhpur Bench

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)

All 365 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →