INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, GONDIA vs. SHRI RAJENDRAKUMAR HIRALAL JAIN, GONDIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 300/NAG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 August 2023AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the calculation of the tax effect, which was found to be below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of an addition made based on cash payments found in seized diaries. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the statutory limit for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable due to low tax effect, considering the CBDT circulars on monetary limits for appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : : NAGPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri K P Dewani – AR
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal– DR
Hearing: 25/08/2023Pronounced: 30/08/2023

आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue i.e.ITO, Ward-1, Gondia is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nagpur dated 19.07.2019 for the A.Y.2011-12, emanating out of order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Shri Rajndrakumar Hiralal Jain [R] Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :

1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made on the basis of incriminating entries of substantial cash payments made appearing in the seized diaries of Shri Mitesh Bhangadia Group.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the circumstantial evidence of payment received by the assesse without considering the facts of the case.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Shri Mitesh Bhangadia has not been accepted by the Department and further appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court.

4.

Any other ground that may be raised during the proceedings.”

Submission of ld.AR : 2. At the outset, ld.Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that the Tax Effect in this case is only Rs.46,10,204/- which is below the statutory limit laid down by CBDT for filing the appeal. The ld.AR filed calculation to demonstrate Tax Effect which is as under :

Shri Rajndrakumar Hiralal Jain [R]

3.

The ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue relied on the orders of the Lower Authorities.

Findings & Analysis : 4. In this case, the ld.AR claimed that Tax Effect is Rs.46,10,204/-. We have perused the calculation. The CBDT Circular No.03/2018 dated 11/07/2018 fixed monetary limit for filing of appeals by the Revenue before the Tribunal at Rs.20.00 lakhs. Such limit has now been enhanced in the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 to Rs.50.00 lakhs. The tax effect in Shri Rajndrakumar Hiralal Jain [R] the instant appeal is less than the revised monetary limit of Rs.50.00 lakhs.

5.

At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the CBDT vide F.No.279/Misc/M-13/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019 has clarified that the revised monetary limits so mentioned in Circular No.17/2019 are applicable to all pending appeals. In view of the foregoing discussion, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect. However, if Revenue disagrees with the calculation submitted by the ld.AR, the Revenue is free to file Miscellaneous Application if deemed appropriate.

6.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th August, 2023.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →