Sports Club of Gujarat Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT,Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

CO 58/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8229 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL R SHAH; S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Audit objection; Tax effect

Judgement Text

ITA NO.728/AHD/2015 & C.O. NO.58/AHD/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.728/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. THE SPORTS CLUB OF GUJARAT LTD., CIRCLE 4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD. SARDAR PATEL STADIUM , NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD 380 014. [PAN AAACT 7280 N] C.O. NO.58/AHD/2015 (IN ITA NO.728/AHD/2015) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE SPORTS CLUB OF GUJARAT LTD., VS. DY. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX, SARDAR PATEL STADIUM, CIRCLE 4(1)(2), AHMEDABA D. NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD 380 014. [PAN AAACT 7280 N] (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) REVENUE BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR, CIT (D.R.) & SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, A.R & SHRI ANIL R SHAH, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 27.09.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.09.2018 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 5 TH JANUARY, 2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-8, AHMEDABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL :- (1) WHETHER THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) IS RIGHT IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF GUEST FEES, HIRE OF ROOMS AND HIRE CHARGES IN RESPECT OF CLUB LAWNS AGG REGATING TO RS.49,96,194/-. ITA NO.728/AHD/2015 & C.O. NO.58/AHD/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 3 (2) WHETHER THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) IS RIGHT IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.5 7(III) OF THE ACT OF RS.4,24,621/-. (3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (4) IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE NEEDS TO BE DISMISSED ON ACCO UNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT IN VIEW OF THE RECENT CBDT CIRCULAR NO.3 OF 2018 DATED 11.07.2 018. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE AFORESAID CBDT CIRCULAR . 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT PRIMA-FACIE THIS APPEAL OF TH E REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE RECENT CBDT CIRCULAR NO.3/2018 IN F.NO. 279/MISC.142/2007-ITJ (PT) DATED 11 TH JULY, 2018, VIDE WHICH IT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE BOARD THAT NO DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS SHOULD BE FILED BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL IF THE TAX EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)S ORDER IS BELOW RS. 20 LACS. THE BOARD HAS PROVIDED EXEMPTIONS AT CLAUSE (10) OF THE INSTR UCTIONS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT THESE INSTRUCTIONS WILL NOT BE APPLIC ABLE, WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF AN ACT/RULE IS UNDER CHALLENGE OR WHERE BOARDS ORDER, NOTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION OR CIRCULAR HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ILLEGAL OR WHERE REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION IN THE CASE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPA RTMENT OR WHERE THE ADDITION RELATES TO UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN ASSETS/BANK ACCOUNTS ETC. WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE EXEMPTION CLAUSE AND THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.20 LACS. THEREFORE, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT MAINTA INABLE AND HENCE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. 6. COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSES SEE, 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, AL SO DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND C ROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BOTH ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT TODAY ON THE 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- WASEEM AHMED MS. MADHUMITA ROY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 28 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018 BIJU T/* ITA NO.728/AHD/2015 & C.O. NO.58/AHD/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER UE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD