The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara V. M/s. Pramukh Metal Quarry, Vadodara

ITA 2634/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7791 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL R SHAH
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

SMC-ITA NO. 2634/AHD/2015 ITO VS. PRAMUKH METAL QUARRY ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [ BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ITA NO.2634/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 INCOME-TAX OFFICER ...............APPELLAN T WARD- 1(2)(5), VADODARA VS. PRAMUKH METAL QUARRY .......................... ..RESPONDENT 101, PARTH AVENUE, OPP. SARABHAI GATE, VADODARA 390 007 [PAN : AAJFP 5189 N] APPEARANCES BY: JAMES KURIAN, FOR THE APPELLANT ANIL R. SHAH, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 24.04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 23.07.2018 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 12 TH JUNE, 2015 PASSED BY THE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-5, VADODARA, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.2406000/- U/S 68 I N THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE-FIRM IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS SINGULARLY FAILED IN EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CASH INTRODUCED UNDER THE GRAB OF CAPITAL BROUGH T INTO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNER. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDI TION OF RS.2176600/- TO RS.326400/- BY ARBITRARILY RESTRICTING THE DISALLOW ANCE AT 15% OF EXPENSES IGNORING THE FACT THAT FACTS OF THIS CASE CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENSE WAS PATENTLY BOGUS. 2. WHILE DICTATING THE ORDER, I HAVE NOTICED THAT T HE TOTAL TAX INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS SAID TO BE RS.19,26,250/-. IN VIEW OF THIS UNDISPU TED FACT AND IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT CBDT SMC-ITA NO. 2634/AHD/2015 ITO VS. PRAMUKH METAL QUARRY ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 2 CIRCULAR NO.3 OF 2018 DATED 11.07.2018, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.20,00,000/-. ACCORDING LY, I DISMISS THE APPEAL AS WITHDRAWN. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 23 RD DAY OF JULY, 2018. SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 23 RD DAY OF JULY, 2018 **BT COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: .... COVERED BY CBDT CIRCU LAR...23.07.2018 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: .. 23.07.2018. 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . P.S./P.S.: .. 23.07.2018...... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: .. 23.07.2018..... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : ... 23.07.2018 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK : . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: ......