ITO, Silvassa Ward, Silvassa, Vapi V. M/s. Gold Oil Corporation, SILVASSA

ITA 3472/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2309 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS ILLA PARMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: JAIRAJ P DHAKAN
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITO, SILVASSA VS. GOLD OIL CORPORATION /I.T.A. NO.3472/AHD/2015/SRT A.Y.2010-11 PAGE 1 OF 3 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . . ./I.T.A NO.3472/AHD/2015/SRT /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SILVASSA WARD, SILVASSA. VS. GOLD OIL CORPORATION, PLOT NO.5, S.NO. 207/5, VILLAGE UMARKUI, SILVASSA. PAN: AAGFG 6826J APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY SHRI JAIRAJ P. DHAKAN, CA /REVENUE BY MRS. ILLA PARMAR, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING: 24.05.2018 /PRONOUNCEMENT ON 28.05.2018 /O R D E R PER O. P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VALSAD, [THE CIT(A)], VALSAD DATED 01.10.2015 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI (IN SHORT THE AO) DATED 08.03.2013 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). ITO, SILVASSA VS. GOLD OIL CORPORATION /I.T.A. NO.3472/AHD/2015/SRT A.Y.2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT OF RS.10,00,000/- PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT TO FILE AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015, DATED 10.12.2015. THE LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY CONCEDED THIS FACT. THE AO HAS TAKEN GROUND THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS AFTER CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND AFTER PLACING RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF SMT PRABHAVATI S. SHAH 231 ITR 1 (BOMBAY), SURETECH HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH 293 ITR 53 (BOMBAY) AND ANMOL COLORS (C) LTD. 121 TTJ 269 (ITAT-JAIPUR) HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY VIOLATION OF RULE 46A WHILE ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. BEING SO, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE PRECLUDED FROM FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/- IN THIS APPEAL. WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN CLAUSE OF CBDT CIRCULAR. ITO, SILVASSA VS. GOLD OIL CORPORATION /I.T.A. NO.3472/AHD/2015/SRT A.Y.2010-11 PAGE 3 OF 3 ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28-05-2018. SD/- SD/- ( . . ) /(C.M. GARG) ( . . ) /(O.P.MEENA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / SURAT: / DATED : 28 TH MAY, 2018 / SGR COPY SENT TO- ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SURAT