The ITO,Vapi Ward-2, Vapi V. Shri Mukesh B.Chotaliya, Vapi

ITSSA 27/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8441 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 26-05-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N L AGARWALA

Judgement Text

IT(SS)A.NO.27/A /2009 BLOCK PERIOD 199 6-97 TO 2001-02 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH,AHME DABAD. ( BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT & SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL) I.T .(SS) A. NO. 27/AHD/2009 (BLOCK PERIOD P.Y.1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.2 002) INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-2, ROOM NO.205, SHIVAM COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, N.H. NO.8, VAPI. (APPELLANT) VS. SHRI MUKESH B. CHOTALIYA, 204, SANT DARSHAN APARTMENT, MALHAR CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY, VAPI. (RESPONDENT) PAN : ADAPC 8978 Q APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. K. SINHA, CIT (D.R.) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N.L. AGARWALA, A.R. ( (( ( )/ )/)/ )/ ORDER PER: SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE RAISING FOL LOWING GROUND:- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DECIDING THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED ON 30-7-2004 WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE BE SET ASIDE. ORDER PASSED ON 14-12-2006 WOULD BE BEYOND LIMITATION. 2. IN THE COMPILATION AT PAGE-23A THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A NOTICE OF DEMAND U/S. 156 OF THE I. T. ACT FOR THE BLOCK PERI OD WHEREIN THE TAX PAYABLE IS RS. 1,75,715/-. BY REFERRING THIS NOTICE OF DEMA ND, THE LD. A.R. SHRI S.N.L. AGARWALA, HAS PLEADED THAT SINCE THE TAX INV OLVED WAS LESS THAN RS.2 IT(SS)A.NO.27/A /2009 BLOCK PERIOD 199 6-97 TO 2001-02 2 LAKHS, THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HAS TO BE DISMISSED BEING IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE C.B.D.T. CIRCULAR. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND RESP ECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON. DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. MANGLAM RICINUS LTD., (2008) 174 TAXMAN 186 (DEL.), WE HOLD THAT IN STRUCTION NO.5 OF 15 TH MAY, 2008 COULD ONLY BE APPLICABLE IN THOSE CASES W HERE THE APPEAL IS FILED AFTER THAT DATE. SINCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVE NUE IS AFTER THAT DATE, WE FOLLOW THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANGLAM RICINUS LTD. (SUPRA) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW REVENUE EFFECT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31 - 05- 2011. SD/- SD/- (D. C. AGRAWAL) (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD. DATED: 31 -05 - 2011. S.A.PATKI. IT(SS)A.NO.27/A /2009 BLOCK PERIOD 199 6-97 TO 2001-02 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-II, AHMEDABAD. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD. 1.DATE OF DICTATION 26 - 5 -2011 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 27 / 5 / 2011 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S - -2011. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT - -2011 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S - -2011 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK - -2011. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..