THE ITO, WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM vs. SHRI KULDEEP B. SAKLECHA, GANDHIDHAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 393/RJT/2016Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 January 2022AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, acknowledging the applicability of the CBDT circular on monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue can seek restoration if the circular is shown to be inapplicable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made by the AO. The assessee contended that the appeal was hit by a CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable in light of the CBDT circular revising monetary thresholds for appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, AR
Hearing: 27/01/2022

आदेश/O R D E R

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:

1.

The appeal filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2011-12, arise from order of the CIT(A)-2, Rajkot dated 25.07.2016, in proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

2.

The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as under:-

“1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts deleting the addition of Rs. 62,18,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits.

2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts deleting the addition of Rs. 14,92,048/- on account of unexplained security business.

3. The ld.CIT(A)has erred in law and facts deleting the addition of Rs. 12,50,000/- on account of unexplained capital introduced.

4. The ld. CIT(A)has erred in law and facts deleting the addition of Rs. 11,35,500/- on account of unexplained cash credit.

[ITO vs. Shri Kuldeep Bhagwanchand Saklecha] A.Y. 2011-12 2 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in accepting the assessee’s contention that income of Rs. 51,78,000/- was generated out of undisclosed business income without any supporting or corroborative evidences.

6.

The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in accepting the assessee’s claim for loss of Rs. 55,01,145/- on account of transaction in securities especially when this was not claimed in the return or scrutiny proceedings.

7.

It is therefore prayed that the order of ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of AO be restored to the above extent.”

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 27/01/2022

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →