THE ITO, Ward -7(3), V. SMT. TINABEN M. HADIA,

ITA 193/AHD/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6410 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2003
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'C' (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI,JM & SHRI A N PAHUJA,AM ITA.NO.193/AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR :-1994-95) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(3), AHMEDABAD V/S SMT. TINABEN H HADIA, (SMT. TINABEN REVASHANKAR BHATT),8/85 ABHILASHA APARTMENT, VYAS VADI, NAVA VADAJ, AHMEDABAD [PAN:NOT AVAILABLE] [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] REVENUE BY :- SHRI B L YADAV, DR ASSESSEE BY:- NONE -: O R D E R :- A N PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 16-10-2002 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-XIII, AHMEDABAD, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADD ITION OF RS.1,13,600/- MADE BY THE AO BEING UNEXPLAINED AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT FOUND IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO . 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDE RING THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED, WE, THEREFORE, DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS BELOW THE LIMIT OF RS.1 LAKH STI PULATED BY THE CBDT IN THEIR INSTRUCTION FOR FILING APPEALS WHILE THE LD. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT THAT THE CASE FALLS WITHIN ANY OF THE EXC EPTIONS IN CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1979 DATED 27.3.2000 AS CLARIFIED V IDE SUBSEQUENT INSTRUCTION NO. 1985 DATED 29.6.2000. VIDE INSTRUCT ION NO.1903 ITA.NO.193/AHD/2003 2 DATED 28TH OCTOBER,1992, THE MONETARY LIMIT WAS REV ISED UPWARD AND THE OFFICERS WERE DIRECTED NOT TO FILE THE APPE AL BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WHERE THE TAX EFFECT WAS BELOW RS.25,000/-. THE ABOVE MONETARY LIMIT WAS FURTHER R EVISED UPWARD BY INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 27TH MARCH,2000 AND TH E OFFICERS WERE DIRECTED NOT TO FILE THE APPEAL TO ITAT WHERE THE T AX EFFECT IS BELOW RS.1 LAC. THE ABOVE CIRCULAR WAS CONSIDERED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CAMCO COLOUR CO. (SUPRA) AND T HEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AT PAGE 568 AS UNDER:- 'IN APPEARS THAT DESPITE THE ABOVE CIRCULAR, THE RE VENUE HAS CHOSEN TO FILE THE PRESENT APPEAL KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT THE CORRIDORS OF THE COURTS ARE FLOODED WITH PENDING LITIGATIONS. THE PRESENTAT ION OF THIS APPEAL IS QUITE CONTRARY TO THE INSTRUCTION ISSUED IN THE CIR CULAR WHICH IS BINDING ON THE REVENUE. IN THE ABOVE VIEW OF THE MATTER, CONSIDERING THE I NSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, WE ARE SATISFIED THA T THE BOARD HAS TAKEN A POLICY DECISION NOT TO FILE APPEAL IN A TYPE OF CAS E IN HAND AND THE SAME IS BINDING ON THE REVENUE (APPELLANT HEREIN). IN THE R ESULT, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL ON THIS COUNT IN LIMINE WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. ' 3. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING AND IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID INSTRUCTION NO. 1979 DATED 27.3.2000 AS CLARIFIED VIDE SUBSEQUE NT INSTRUCTION NO. 1985 DATED 29.6.2000 AND DECISION DATED 5.8.200 8 OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. CONCORD PHAMACEUTICALS IN TAX APPEAL NOS. 1402 TO 1405 OF 2 007 AS ALSO CONSISTENT VIEW TAKEN BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHHAJER PACKAGING AND PLASTICS P.LTD., 300 ITR 180(BOM.),CIT VS. CAMCO COLOUR CO,254 ITR 565(BOM.), & CIT VS. ZO EB Y TOPIWALA,284 ITR 379(BOM), CIT VS. S.ANNAMALAI,258 ITR 675(MADRAS) AND HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THEIR O RDER DATED 1.8.2007 IN ITA NO. 683/2007 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANISH BHAMBRI, THIS APPEAL CAN NOT BE ENTERTAINED. ITA.NO.193/AHD/2003 3 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESA ID DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND OTHER HIGH CO URTS, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED, IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 24 -05-2011 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A N PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 24-05-2011 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT. TINABEN H HADIA, (SMT. TINABEN REVASHANKAR BHATT) 8/85 ABHILASHA APARTMENT, VYAS VADI, NAVA VADAJ, AHMEDABAD 2. ITO, WARD-7(3), AHMEDABAD 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-XIII, AHMEDABAD 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH-C, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD