ITO Ward-1, Bhilwara V. Shri Amar Singh Jain , Bhilwara

ITA 301/JODH/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1926 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GIRISH MEHTA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Tax effect; Set aside
• Section: 69C; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH ES, SMC JODHPUR BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.301/JODH/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 THE ITO WARD-I, BHILWARA VS. SHRI AMAR SINGH JAIN 22, SUBHASH NAGAR, EXTN. WEST BHILWARA PAN N O: AASPJ5136G APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SMT. RAKSHA BIRLA, C.A REVENUE BY : SHRI GIRISH MEHTA, JCIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 25/11/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/11/2019 / ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE OR DER DT. 03/07/2019 OF LD. CIT(A), AJMER. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET STATED THAT TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPE AL IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED BY THE CBDT IN CIRCULAR NO. 03/2018 DATED . 11/07/2018 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAV E FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT EVEN THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IS LES S THAN RS. 50,00,000/-. 3. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR SUBMITTE D THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED ON THE BASIS THAT REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTED HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE CASE FILED UNDER CLAUSE 10(C) OF CIRCULAR NO. 03/2018. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES, IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOWHERE ME NTIONED IN HIS ORDER DATED 2 31/08/2018 PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT) THAT OBJECTION WAS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AUDIT DEPARTMENT ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. CIT(A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY MENTIONING THAT THE AMOUNT CON SIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECTIFYING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT AN UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT, RATHER IT REPRESENTED LOSS OF SALE OF SHARES AND THIS ISSUE WAS A DEBATABLE WHICH WAS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD, IN THE PRESENT CA SE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THIS CASE FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF TAX EFFECT FO R WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FILED THE APPEAL AS PER THE CIRCULAR NO . 03/2018 DATED 11/07/2018 ISSUED BY THE CBDT. EVEN ON MERIT ALSO, THE LD. CIT (A) RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ISSUE WAS A DEBATABLE, THEREFORE THE ACTION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN CHARGING THE INCOME TAX ON THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,44,306/- UNDER SE CTION 115BBE WAS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT AS THE MISTAKE WAS NOT APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. I THEREFORE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMI SSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/11/2019) SD/- ( N.K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 25/11/2019 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. GUARD FILE