The ITO, Ward-3(2), JAMNAGAR V. M/s Sonu Enterprise, JAMNAGAR

ITA 82/RJT/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6718 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C P BHATIA
• Keywords: Audit objection; Tax effect

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [ CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.82/RJT/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2) JAMNAGAR / VS. M/S. SONU ENTERPRISE SHOP NO.06 VISHAL COMPLEX MOTI KHAVDI JAMNAGAR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAXFS 2737 D ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.P. BHATIA, SR.DR ! / RESPONDENT BY : NONE ' #$% ! & / DATE OF HEARING 09/02/2017 '( ! & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13/02/2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-JA MNAGAR [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 14/12/2015 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2006-07. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ITA NO.82/RJT/2 016 ITO VS. M/S.SONU ENTERPRISE ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 2 - 1. WHETHER, ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.3,53, 375/- AS NO CONFIRMATION OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODU CED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,53,375/- IS HIRE CHARGE. 2. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS IN EXCEPTIONAL CRITE RIA MENTIONED IN PARA 8 (C) OF CIRCULAR 21 OF 2015 DATED 10/12/2015 WHICH READS AS UNDER. ADVERSE JUDGMENTS RELATING TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES SHOULD BE CONTESTED ON, MERITS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE TAX E FFECT ENTAILED IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA. 3 ABOVE OR THERE IS NO TAX EFFECT: WHERE REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION IN THE CASE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 3 ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 4. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE REST ORED. 5. THAT THE REVENUE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, AL TER OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT BY THE ASSESSEE IS VAGUE AND CASUAL WHI CH WE DECLINE TO ENTERTAIN. ITA NO.82/RJT/2 016 ITO VS. M/S.SONU ENTERPRISE ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 3 - 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON PERUSING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED B Y THE REVENUE, WE FIND THAT REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IN RESPECT OF THE RELIEF GIVEN BY HIM. AS PER THE CIRCULAR OF CENTR AL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT) DATED 10/12/2015 (CIRCULAR NO. 21 OF 2 015), NO DEPARTMENT APPEALS ARE TO BE FILED AGAINST RELIEF G IVEN BY CIT(A) BEFORE THE INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL UNLESS THE TAX EFFECT, EXCL UDING INTEREST EXCEEDS RS. 10 LACS AND IT FURTHER STATES THAT THE INSTRUCT IONS WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO THE PENDING APPEALS ALSO. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ON THE ADDITIONS WHICH ARE IN DISPUTE, THE TAX EFFECT IS ONLY RS.1,18,950/- AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVERED BY EXCEPTIONS SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE (8) OF THE AFORESAID CBDT CIRCULAR AS ALLEGED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE AFORESAID CBD T CIRCULAR WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON ACCOUNT OF LO W TAX EFFECT AS PER THE SPIRIT OF THE CIRCULAR. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE D ISMISS THE APPEAL OF REVENUE WITHOUT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON MERITS OF THE CASE. HOWEVER, IN CASE THERE IS ANY ERROR IN THE COMPUTAT ION OF THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED OR IF FOR ANY REASON, THE AFORESAID CBDT C IRCULAR IS NOT APPLICABLE, IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO SEEK REVIVAL OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO.82/RJT/2 016 ITO VS. M/S.SONU ENTERPRISE ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 4 - 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13/02/20 17 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( RAJPAL YADAV) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD ; DATED 13/02/2017 ..#, $.,#../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. - & ' .& / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' .& ( ) / THE CIT(A)-JAMNAGAR 5. 2$34 ,&,# , , /DR,ITAT, RAJKOT 6. 4?@ A% / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 2& ,& //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) %&, / ITAT, RAJKOT 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 9.2.17 (DICTATION-PAD 3-P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 9.2.17 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 13.2.17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 13.2.17 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER