The ITO, Ward-5(3), Surat V. Shri Pareshbhai Chimanlal Vankawala, Surat

ITA 636/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9787 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L CHANDEL
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM, & MANISH BORAD, AM . ITA NO.636/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2008-09 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-5(3), SURAT VS SHRI PARESHBH AI CHIMANLAL VANKAWALA, 1/2045, BARA HAZARI STREET, NANPURA, SURAT APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN -AAKPV5350N APPELLANT BY S. L.. CHANDEL, DR RESPONDENT BY NONE DATE OF HEARING: 17/12/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/01/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF CIT(A)- 1, SURAT IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-1/TFR-5.146/291/12-13 DATED 20.12.2012 FOR ASST. YEAR 2008-09. ASSESSMENT WAS F RAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) ON 30.12.2010. FOLLOW ING GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITIO N FROM RS.14,88,059/- TO RS.5,68,791/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ITA NO.2440/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF FOR DED UCTION U/S 54 OF RS.11,02,299/- AGAINST DEDUCTION U/S 54 ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY RS.7,26,160/- I.E. THE LD. C IT(A) HAS GRANTED EXCESS DEDUCTION OF RS.3,76,139/- U/S 54 OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.1,98,132/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.7,10,668/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEBTORS. 5. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A)-IV, SURAT MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER S ORDER MAY BE RESTORED. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SO AFTE R HEARING THE LD. DR WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL. AFTER CONSI DERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE OBSERVE THAT A CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATE D 10.12.2015 HAS BEEN ISSUED BY CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (C BDT) IN RELATION TO REVISION OF MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING OF APPEAL S BY THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (IN SHORT ITAT). 3. ON GOING THROUGH THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE ABOVE R EFERRED CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10/12/2015 WE FIND THAT T HESE INSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED PROHIBITING SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIE S FROM FILING OF THE APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) WHERE THE TAX EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. THE INSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE APPLICABLE W ITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, MEANING THEREBY, THESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE APP LICABLE ON PENDING ITA NO.2440/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 3 APPEALS ALSO. FROM GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE P RESENT APPEAL WE FIND THAT TOTAL TAX EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF CIT(A)S OR DER AGAINST WHICH REVENUE IS IN APPEAL IS BELOW RS.10 LAKHS. THE PRES ENT APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED BEING TREATED TO BE FILED IN VIOLATION OF CBDT INSTRUCTIONS. THE CASE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN TH E AMBIT OF EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS. IT IS FURT HER OBSERVED THAT SINCE, WHILE HEARING THE APPEAL, SUCH FACTORS WERE NOT CONSIDERED, THEREFORE, IN CASE, ON RE-VERIFICATION AT THE END O F THE AO, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS MORE OR IT FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN THE INSTRUCTION, THEN THE DE PARTMENT WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECALL OF THIS ORDER. SUCH APPLICATION SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF TH IS ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/01/2016 SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 08/01/2016 MAHATA/- ITA NO.2440/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 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 ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 5/1/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 5/1/2016 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK:8 /1/2016 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: