COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AP HYD V. M/S AVANTHI LEATHERS LTD HYD

RC/172/2000

AI Insights

The case involves a reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, concerning the deletion of an additional tax of Rs.53,510 charged under Section 143(1A) of the Income Tax Act. The reference was prompted by the Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P.-II, Hyderabad, after the Tribunal had initially allowed the respondent's appeal, which contested the additional tax charge. The legal questions centered on the correctness of the Tribunal's decision to delete the additional tax and whether there was a mistake apparent from the record regarding the amendment to Section 143(1A), which was not in effect at the time of the original order but was given retrospective effect from a later date. The court's decision not to answer the reference was based on the minimal tax impact, adhering to procedural guidelines that discourage pursuing appeals or references for minor tax amounts.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 718878 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Keywords: Additional tax; Income Tax; Mistake apparent from record; Retrospective effect
• Section: 154; 268A; 143(1)(a); 143(1A); 256(2)

Judgement Text

"HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM R.C. No.172 of 2000 ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) This reference is made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad “B” Bench (for short “the Tribunal”), through its order dated 28.03.2000 in R.A.No.785/Hyd/1996, at the instance of Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P.-II, Hyderabad, with the following questions of law: a) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ITAT is correct in law in deleting the additional tax of Rs.53,510/- charged under Section 143(1A) of the I.T.Act?”. b) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that there was no mistake apparent from record as on the date of passing the order u/s.154 on 25.1.1993 as the amendment to Section 143(1A) was not on statute book as on that date, though the amendment was given retrospective effect w.e.f.1.4.1999?”. 2) The facts in brief are that the respondent-industry filed return on 29.12.1989 showing a loss of Rs.81,34,530/-. The Income Tax Officer processed the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax (for short “the Act”) and accepted the claim of the respondent. Thereafter, he reopened the matter alleging that a sum of Rs.5,09,614/- was not taken into account. After issuing a notice to the respondent, the Assessing Authority passed an order dated 25.01.1993 reducing the loss to Rs.76,24,926/-. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals and on dismissal thereof, it carried the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal. The Revenue filed an application under Section 256(2) of the Act, before the Tribunal with a request to refer certain questions framed by this Court for answer. On declining of the reference the revenue filed I.T.C.No.33 of 1999 and the same was allowed on 18.01.2000 and incompliance of the directions, the present reference is made. 3) Heard Sri S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel for the Revenue and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4) Even from a perusal of Question No.1, it is evident that the tax impact in the instant case will be Rs.53,510/-. It is brought to our notice that at the relevant point of time, the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and Section 268A of the Act were to the effect that in case the tax impact is less than Rs.1,50,000/-, it is unnecessary for the Department to pursue the remedies of appeal or to seek reference. This Court took note of various circulars as well as the relevant provisions of law on this aspect, in its common judgment dated 24.01.2014 in W.T.A. No.24 of 2004 and Batch. It was also observed that wherever the tax impact is less than the stipulated amount the Court can decline to answer the reference. 5) Following the same, we decline to answer the reference. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J ____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J Date:24.06.2014 Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM R.C. No.172 of 2000 Date:24.06.2014. Gk "