ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(3), Nagpur V. VIDHARBHA TRADELINKS PVT. LTD., Nagpur

ITA 464/NAG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9670 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A R NINAWE
• Assessee Lawyers: R V LOYA
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 464/NAG./2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200809 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2(3), NAGPUR APPELLANT V/S VIDARBHA TRADELINKS PVT. LTD. A20, JEEVAN CHAYA RAMDASPETH, NAGPUR 440 010 PAN AABCV4599D .... RESPONDENT C.O. NO.19/NAG./2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 464/NAG./2014 ) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200809 ) VIDARBHA TRADELINKS PVT. LTD. A20, JEEVAN CHAYA RAMDASPETH, NAGPUR 440 010 PAN AABCV4599D CROSS OBJECTOR (ORIGINAL RESPONDENT) V/S ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2(3), NAGPUR .... RESPONDENT (ORIGINAL APPELLANT) REVENUE BY : SHRI A.R. NINAWE ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.V. LOYA DATE OF HEARING 21.06.2017 DATE OF ORDER 21.0 6.2017 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, J.M. THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE FILED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14 TH AUGUST 2014, 2 VIDARBHA TRADELINKS PVT. LTD. PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)III, N AGPUR, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200809. ITA NO.464/NAG./2014 REVENUES APPEAL THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REPRODUCED BELO W: (1) THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER U/S . 153C / 143(3) IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS. (2) THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 20,74,000/- AS UNDISCLOSE D INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND ON THE BASIS OF PREVIOUS YEAR ADD ITIONS. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND TH E EXPLANATIONS OFFERED ALONGWITH EVIDENCE, THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. (3) THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE AGREEMENT TO SALE FOUND FOR RS. 56,64,945/ AND RS. 32,60,400/- WITHOUT APPRECIATIN G THAT THE AGREEMENTS ARE FAKE AGREEMENT TO IMPRESS THE PURCHA SER. (4) THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE INQU IRED ABOUT THE SAME FROM THE EXECUTOR OF THE ABOVE DOCUM ENTS. (5) THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VARIOUS AGREEM ENTS OF SALE OF THE SAME VILLAGE BY VARIOUS PERSON INTO CONSIDERATI ON TO ARRIVE AT THE REAL MARKET VALUE. (6) THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B, 234C AND 234D OF THE ACT. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE TAX EFFECT ON THE INCOME UNDER DISPUTE IS LESS THAN ` 10 LAKH. WE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 FILE NO.279 OF MISC. 142/2007ITJ(PT ) HAS ISSUED THE DIRECTION IN SUPERSESSION OF THE INSTRUCTION NO.5/2 014 DATED 10 TH JULY 3 VIDARBHA TRADELINKS PVT. LTD. 2014, IN PURSUANCE WITH THE POWER INTERESTED UNDER SECTION 268A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THAT NO APPEAL SHOULD BE FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED ` 10 LAKH. THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS REGARD MEANS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AND THE TAX THAT WHAT HAVE BEEN CHA RGEABLE HAD SUCH TOTAL INCOME BEEN REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF INC OME IN RESPECT OF ISSUES AGAINST WHICH APPEAL IS INTENDED TO BE FILED . THIS CIRCULAR FURTHER STATES THAT TAX WILL NOT INCLUDE ANY INTEREST THERE ON THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST ITSELF IS IN DISPUTE. WE FURTHER NOTED THA T UNDER PARAGRAPH 10 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE CIRCULAR THAT THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY EVEN TO THE PENDIN G APPEALS. 10. THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN HIGH COURTS/T RIBUNALS. PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED TAX LIMITS IN P ARA 3 ABOVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSED. APPEALS BEFORE THE SU PREME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. 3. IN THE IMPUGNED CASE, WE NOTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT ON THE ISSUE UNDER DISPUTE DOES NOT EXCEED ` 10 LAKH. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, AS PER THE INSTRUCTION, THE REVENUE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO PRE SS THE APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN LIMINE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, AS, IN OUR OPINI ON, THE CIRCULARS ISSUED BY CBDT ARE BINDING ON THE DEPARTMENTAL OFFI CERS IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 268A(1) OF THE ACT. THE SA ID VIEW HAS BEEN 4 VIDARBHA TRADELINKS PVT. LTD. TAKEN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NAVNE ET LAL ZAVERI V/S AAC, 56 ITR 198 (SC). WE, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 4. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS HEREBY ORDERED T O BE DISMISSED. C.O. NO.19/NAG./2015 ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US TH AT HE DID NOT WISH TO PRESS THIS CROSS OBJECTION TO WHICH THE LEA RNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT EXPRESSED ANY OBJECTION. CON SEQUENTLY, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED. 7. TO SUM UP, REVENUES APPEAL AND ASSESSEES CROSS OB JECTION ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.06.2017 SD/ - P.K. BANSAL VICE PRESIDENT SD/ - AMARJIT SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 21.06.2017 5 VIDARBHA TRADELINKS PVT. LTD. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, NAGPUR CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, NAGPUR; (6) GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, NAGPUR