M/s. Tashkent Oil Co.Pvt.Ltd., Baroda V. The ACIT.,Circle-4, Baroda

CO 182/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2017 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JANGID
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 16 43 /AHD/2012 & C.O. NO.182/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 10 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND KUL BHARAT JM ] I.T.A. NO. 16 43 /AHD/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , .. .APPELLANT CIRCLE - 4, BARODA . VS . TASHKENT OIL CO. PVT. LTD., .. . RESPONDENT GIDC ESTATE , NA NDESARI, BARODA . [PAN: A AACT 7751 N ] C.O. NO.182/AHD/2012 (IN I.T.A. NO. 1643/AHD/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 TASHKENT OIL CO. PVT. LTD., .. .APPELLANT GIDC EST ATE, NANDESARI, BARODA. [PAN: A AACT 7751 N ] VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , .. . RESPONDENT CIRCLE - 4, BARODA. APPEARANCES BY: J.P. JANGID , FOR THE REVENUE NONE , FOR THE ASSESSEE D ATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : FEBRUARY 11 TH , 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 15 TH , 201 6 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM : 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 2 9 TH MAY, 2012, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - I.T.A. NO . 16 43 /AHD/2012 & C.O. NO.182/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 10 PAGE 2 OF 3 1 . ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT ( A ) HAS E R RED IN D ELETING LIA ISON ING CHA RGES OF RS. 18,16,954/ - PAID T O SHRI H . M . SHAH , DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE F ACT THAT THERE WAS NO INCREASE IN T HE PRODUCTION AND 37% INCREASE IN COST WAS SHIFTED TO THE CUSTOMERS BY HIKE IN PRICE THERE F ORE THE ASSESSEE H A S FAILED TO PROVE T HAT SHRI H . M . SHAHH HAS RE N DERED REASONABLE SERVICES TO T HE COMPANY FOR WHICH LIA ISONING CHA RGES HAVE B E EN PAID TO HIM. 2 . ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/ - . IN VIEW O F THIS UNDISPUTED FACT AND IN THE LIGHT OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS LESS THAN R S.10,00,000/ - . 3 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4 . IN THE CROSS OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES: - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I, BARODA [ THE CIT(A) ] ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, BARODA [ THE AO ] IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,63,640/ - . 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. AS THE APPEAL ITSELF IS HELD TO BE NON - MAINTAINABLE, THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CROSS OBJECTION CEASES TO HOLD GOOD IN LAW. THE CROSS OBJECTION IS, THEREFORE, ALSO DISMISSED . I.T.A. NO . 16 43 /AHD/2012 & C.O. NO.182/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 10 PAGE 3 OF 3 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , BOTH ARE DISMISSED. P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 . SD/ - SD/ - KUL BHARAT PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) PBN/* DATED: THE 15 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 201 6 . COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TR IBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD