The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda V. M/s. Shuvam Colonisers P.Ltd, Bathinda

ITA 577/ASR/2014

AI Insights

The case involves the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bathinda (Appellant) vs. M/s Shuvam Colonisers, Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) concerning the assessment year 2010-11. The appeal by the revenue was directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda, which had allowed the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bathinda under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The main issues revolved around the disallowance of certain development expenses and other miscellaneous expenses claimed by the assessee, which the CIT(A) found reasonable, contrary to the AO's disallowance. However, the revenue's appeal was dismissed based on the monetary limit for tax effect as per CBDT guidelines.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115016 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect; Additional evidence; Tax effect
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.577/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bathinda. (Appellant) Vs. M/s Shuvam Colonisers, Pvt. Ltd. HBN Sunrise City Mansa Road, Bathinda. [PAN: AAJCS2195L] (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. S.M. Surender Nath, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CA Date of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 15.03.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),Bathinda,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] date of order 31.07.2014for A.Y. 2010-11.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bathinda, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 144 of the Act date of order 12.03.2013. I.T.A. No.577/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 2 The revenue has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in not appreciating on the face of the fact that the assessee had itself submitted during the course of assessment proceedings that the assessee company has entered into a mutual agreement with the HBN Homes Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. whereby HBN Homes Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. will undertake all the development activities such as earth filling expenses, boundary wall, bricks, development expenses etc. in relation to the land. Hence, apparently, the assessee had not to incur any expenditure on the development of land and the assessee could not justify any reason of debiting the expenses to the tune of Rs.53,51,089/- in respect of development of land. Moreover, the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence in shape of bills/vouchers in support of expenses claimed nor any books of account were produced during the assessment proceedings. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. C1T(A) has erred both in law and on facts in making opinion that the disallowance of Rs.11,16,440/- made by the A.O. (on account of expenses under various heads such as audit fee, land, legal, license fee, miscellaneous, preliminary, salary, staff welfare, stationery etc.) out of petty expenditure is not in order and the expenses claimed are very reasonable. But the assessee could not establish the genuineness I.T.A. No.577/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 3 of expenses by producing the vouchers of expenses and books of account for verification. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law in appreciating the fact that the assessee neither produced the copy of agreement with the HBN Homes Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. nor any copy of return of income of the HBN Homes Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. was furnished to substantiate the fact that the 75% share of total revenue will be retained by the HBN Homes Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. The version of Ld. CIT(A), Bathinda that the assessee has filed copy of agreement and balance sheet of HBN Homes Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. as additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A), is not acceptable as the assessee was given adequate opportunity for filing submissions during assessment proceedings. Hence, it could not be admitted as additional evidence as the assessee was not prevented by sufficient cause for filing the documents before the AO. 4. That the department craves leave to add or alter any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing and the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in admitting the documents produced before him as additional evidence as they are not covered under Rule 46A of the I.T. Act.” 2. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was assessed u/s 144 with an addition of Rs.53,51,089/- and Rs.11,16,440/- and Rs.86,36,950/- which is worked out total amount of Rs.1,51,04,479/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the I.T.A. No.577/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 4 ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. The revenue has filed an appeal before us by challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). 3. During hearing the department has started argument but only the point of grievance was related to for Rs.53,51,089/- and Rs.11,16,440/-. The total tax effect is less than 50 lacs. 4. The ld. counsel further argued that the tax effect of the assessee is below the 50 lacs after the appeal. So, the appeal of the revenue is not entertained. 5. The ld. Sr. Dr has not made any strong objection in quantum issue related filing of appeal before the ITAT 6. Considering the argument of both the rival parties, the tax effect related two grounds of appeal is below the monetary limit as prescribed in theCBDT circular no 17/2019, F No.279/Misc. 142/207-ITJ(Pt) dated 08/08/2019.The copy of the circular is reproduced as below: - I.T.A. No.577/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 5 I.T.A. No.577/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 6 7. In the view of the above we find that the issue raised by the revenue related to tax effect is below the monetary limit as prescribed by the CBDT. With the consent of the ld. Sr DR the appeal of the revenue is rejected due to low tax effect. 8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No. 577/Asr/2014 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.03.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE ) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order