The ITO, Ward-8(2), Ahmedabad V. Selpast Exports Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 297/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7384 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 10-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHEEM THAKKAR
• Keywords: Question of law; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND SHRI A. K. GARO DIA, AM) ITA NO.297/AHD/2010 A.Y.: 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -8(2), 4 TH FLOOR, AJANTA COMM. CENTRES, A WING, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD PA NO. AAACT 7280 N VS SELPLAST EXPORTS PVT. LTD., 307, HARIKRISHNA COMPLEX, PRITAMNAGAR, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI B. L. YADAV, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI ASHEEM THAKKAR, AR DATE OF HEARING: 10-01-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10-01-2012 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XI V, AHMEDABAD DATED 10-11-2009, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2 LACS BEING REMUNERATION PAID TO THE DIRECTOR AND FURTHER CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1 LACS OUT OF SALARY PAI D TO RUPAL J. DOCTOR. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CAS E AND CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF UPPER INDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT. LTD., 117 ITR 569 FOUND THAT REMUNERATION PAID TO THE DIRECTORS IS NOT EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. ADDITION OF RS.2 LACS WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. FURTHER ADDITION OF R S.1 LACS OUT OF ITA NO.297/AHD/2010 ITO, W 8(2), AHMEDABAD VS SELPLAST EXPORTS PVT. LTD . 2 SALARY PAID TO SMT. RUPAL J. DOCTOR WAS ALSO DELETE D BECAUSE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT AND SALARY WAS PAID FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THUS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CO NSIDERING THE FACTS DELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS. THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS PREFERRED ON 01-02-2010. ACCORDING TO CBDT CIRCULAR /INSTRUCTION NO.5/2008 DATED 15-05-2008, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL COULD BE PREFERRED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEN TAX EFFECT EXCEE DS MONETARY LIMIT OF RS.2 LACS. IN THE ABOVE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, ADM ITTEDLY, MONETARY LIMIT OF TAX EFFECT IS BELOW RS.2 LACS. THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED BY THE BENCH, WHETHER THIS APPEA L FALLS UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS AS PROVIDED IN BOARDS INSTRUCTIO N NO.2/2005 DATED 24-10-2005, THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE APPEALS ARE COVERED BY A NY OF THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR OF SUP REME COURT, ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED OR NOT. TH E LEARNED DR STATED THAT IN THIS APPEAL THE ISSUES ARE FACTUAL AND DOES NOT FALL IN ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS AS PROVIDED BY BOARDS INSTRUCTION O R ANY OF THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONCORD PHARMACEUTICALS (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT EXCEPTIONS AS PROVIDED IN BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO.1979/2000 DATED 27-03-2000 R EADS AS UNDER:- 3. ADVERSE JUDGMENTS RELATING TO THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE CONTESTED IRRESPECTIVE OF REVENUE EFFECT : (I) WHERE REVENUE AUDITED OBJECTION IN THE CASE HA S BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT ITA NO.297/AHD/2010 ITO, W 8(2), AHMEDABAD VS SELPLAST EXPORTS PVT. LTD . 3 (II) WHERE THE BOARDS ORDER, NOTIFICATION, INSTRUC TION OR CIRCULAR IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF AN ADVERSE ORDER. (III) WHERE PROSECUTION PROCEEDINGS ARE CONTEMPLATE D AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. (IV) WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PROVI SIONS OF THE ACT ARE UNDER CHALLENGE. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMIT TED THAT TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS BELOW RS.2,00,000/- WHICH I S NOT DISPUTED BY THE LEARNED DR. 5. WE FIND THAT THIS APPEAL RELATES TO LOW TAX EFFE CT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS AND THE VIEWS OF THE AHMEDABAD BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DISMISS THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A. K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/ ITA NO.297/AHD/2010 ITO, W 8(2), AHMEDABAD VS SELPLAST EXPORTS PVT. LTD . 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD