ITO-5(5), BANDA vs. SHRI PRANAV TRIPATHI, MAHOBA

Thereafter, the assessee filed a Misc. Application No. 18/Alld/2022 for seeking recalling of the order of the Tribunal dated 17.5.2022. The Misc. Application of the assessee was allowed, vide order dated 11.11.2022 in para 3 and 4 as under:- “3. We have heard the Ld. AR as well as Ld. DR and considered the relevant record. At the outset, we note that prima-facie the tax effect in the revenue’s appeal is not exceeding to monetary limit prescribed in CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 as well as No. 17 of 2019. The AO has accepted the fact that the Circular of CBDT is applicable in this case. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Shri Pranav Tripathi where the tax effect in the revenue’s appeal is not exceeding to monetary limit prescribed in CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 then, the question of maintainability of the revenue’s appeal is required to be decided which was not considered at the time of passing the impugned order dated 17th May, 2022.

4. Accordingly, we recall the impugned order dated 17th May, 2022 of this Tribunal for deciding the appeal of the revenue afresh after hearing both the parties on the issues including the issue of maintainability of the appeal due to low tax effect. The Registry is directed to fix the appeal of the revenue for fresh hearing and disposal on 15th November, 2022. The date of hearing of the appeal is pronounced in the Open Court and has been noted down by both the parties. Therefore, no separate notice of hearing of the appeal is required to be issue to the parties.” The appeal of the Revenue was fixed for fresh hearing and adjudication for today i.e. on 15.11.2022.

We have heard the learned DR as well as learned AR and carefully perused the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A). The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to examine low capital gain with respect to sale of factory comprising of land, factory shed, plant and machinery and road. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee against which the Revenue filed the present appeal.

The learned DR though sought adjournment of hearing for today to verify from the Assessing Officer whether the present case fall in any of the exceptions provided in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and Circular No. 17/2019. At the outset, we note that when the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for assessment of the capital gain arising from sale of land, plant and machinery etc., then the question of the exceptions provided under CBDT Circular does not arise.

Further, during the course of Misc. Application proceedings, the Assessing Officer filed a report on the tax effect in the Revenue’s appeal wherein the AO accepted the fact that the tax effect in the Revenue’s appeal is 2