The ITO, Ward-6(3), Surat V. Shri Ramanbhai Somabhai Patel, Surat

ITA 2835/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9733 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RICHA RASTOGI
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 2835 /AHD/201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 5 - 06 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH, SMC , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM] I.T.A. NO. 2 835 /AHD/ 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 200 5 - 06 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), SURAT. ............... . APPELL ANT VS. RAMANBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL, ...... . ... . RESPONDENT OPP. KAMNATH MAHADEV TEMPLE, DESAI FALIA, ALTHAN GAM, BHATAR ROAD, SURAT 394 120 [ PAN: BGOPP 5176 R ] APPEARANCES BY: RICHA RASTOGI , FOR THE APPELLANT NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISS ION) , FOR THE RESPONDENT D ATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 28 . 1 2 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 28 . 12 .2016 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2013 , PAS SED BY THE L EARNED CIT(A), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 5 - 06 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.23,27,000 / - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED LTCG. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A),SURAT HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS DECLARED LTCG WITH RESPECT TO SALE OF LAND IN QUESTION IN HIS ROI FOR THE A.Y. 2005 - 06 FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HE HAS CHANGED HIS STAND THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD IN F.Y. 1995 - 96 FOR WHICH IS NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS A MERE AFTERTHOUGHT OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO . 2835 /AHD/201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 5 - 06 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. TH E ASSESSEE HAS SIGNED POWER OF ATTORNEY IN THE CAPACITY OF OWNER OF THE LAND ON 17.09.2012 WHICH FURTHER CONFIRM ITSELF THAT EVEN ON THE DATE OF MAKING OF POWER OF ATTORNEY I.E. ON 17.09.2012 THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF THE L AND . FURTHER, THE DOCUMENTS S UBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND AND DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE SALE OR TRANSFER OF THE LAND TOOK PLACE IN F. YR. 1995 - 96 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT. NEITHER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS HAS ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT LAND WAS SOLD IN F.YR. 1995 - 96. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), SURAT OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - IV, SURAT MAY BE SET - ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ORDER MAY BE RESTORED. 2. WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, MY ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE , POINTING OUT THAT THE ACTUAL TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS RS.8,65,332/ - AND NOT RS.13,41.437/ - . IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE APPEAL CANNOT , THEREFORE, BE PURSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT INTEREST DEMANDS CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING TAX INVOLVED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT THE APPEAL WILL BE FIELD/PERUSED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE PLEA IS INDEED WELL TAKEN. IT IS ONLY THE TAX AMOUNT WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR DECIDING MONETARY TH RESHOLD FOR PURSUING THE APPEALS FILED BY THE I NCOME T AX AUTHORITIES. I HAVE PERUSED THE COMPUTATION OF TAX EFFECT AS FURNISHED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND I FIND IT TO BE PRIMA FACIE CORRECT THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/ - . I, THEREFORE, SEE MERIT IN T HE PLEA OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION RAISED BY HIM REGARDING THIS APPEAL BEING PURSUED. 4. IN VIEW OF THIS UNDISPUTED FACT AND IN THE LIGHT OF CBDT CIRCU LAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, I AM 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 RS.10,00,000/ - . I.T.A. NO . 2835 /AHD/201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 5 - 06 PAGE 3 OF 3 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF DECEMBER , 201 6 . SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 28 TH DAY OF DECEMBER , 2016. PBN/* 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 TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD