Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5044 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
7 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date
14-10-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
03-08-2012
Judgement Text
, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER () ./ I.T(SS).A. NOS. 376 & 377/AHD/2012 & 255/AHD/2015 ( ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2009-10) PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 1563/A, ASHIRWAD, OPP: PANNA TOWER, RUPANI SARDARNAGAR ROAD, BHAVNAGAR / VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(1), 3 RD FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD & ACIT CIRCLE-1, AAYKAR BHAVAN, NAKUBAUG, JASHONATH CHOWK, BHAVNAGAR - 364001 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCP2808B ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) & ./ I.T.A. NO. 1870/AHD/2012 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), 3 RD FLOOR, ROOM NO.306, ANNEXIE TO AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD / VS. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 1563/A, ASHIRWAD, OPP: PANNA TOWER, RUPANI SARDARNAGAR ROAD, BHAVNAGAR ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) IT(SS)A NOS. 376/AHD/12 & 3 ORS. [PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES P. LTD.] -2 - / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR & SMT. URVASHI SHODHAN, A.RS. / REVENUE BY : SHRI ALOK SINGH, CIT.D.R. !' DATE OF HEARING 27/08/2019 #$%& !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14/10/2019 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS AND CROSS APPEAL AT THE INSTA NCE OF ASSESSEE & REVENUE ARISE FROM THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (CIT(A)) AGA INST RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSME NT YEARS AS TABULATED BELOW: IT(SS)A NOS. NAME OF ASSESSEE AY CIT(A)S ORDER DATED AOS ORDER DATED AOS ORDER UNDER SECTION 376/AHD/12 PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 2009-10 08.06.2012 30.12.2011 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) 377/AHD/12 & 1870/AHD/12 -DO- 2010-11 -DO- -DO- 143(3) OF THE ACT 255/AHD/15 -DO- 2009-10 30-09-15 25.03.2014 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT 2. THE GRIEVANCES RAISED BEING COMMON, ALL THE CASE S WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THE COMMON ORDER. 3. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT(S S)A NO. 376/AHD/2012 CONCERNING AY 2009-10. IT(SS)A NOS. 376/AHD/12 & 3 ORS. [PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES P. LTD.] -3 - IT(SS)A NO. 376/AHD/2012-AY-2009-10 (ASSESSEES APP EAL) 4. GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN OMITTING TO DEAL WITH T HE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IN RELATION TO THE VALIDITY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. SIN CE THE DISALLOWANCES /ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ALREADY FOR MS PART OF THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S. 143(3) AND FURTH ER NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT/MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ID. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS MADE ARE ULTRA VIRUS TO THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. HENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 2) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANT'S CASE THE LD. CTT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION U/S.14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF RS. 19,20,041/- WITHOUT APPRECIATIN G THE FACTUAL ASPECT AND HENCE, CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE SA ME. 2.2) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT S INCE NO NEW INVESTMENTS WERE MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON EVEN AS PER THE FINDING OF AO, UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE O F INTEREST U/S.14A OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS AND UNCALLED FOR. T HE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THAT SUCH DISALLOW ANCE OF INTEREST CAN BE MADE IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION ONL Y AND NOT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 3) IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APP ELLANT'S CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES OF RS.7,16,365/-. 4) IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJEC TING GROUND NO.7 OF THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL BEFORE HIM CHALLENGI NG THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT APPEALABLE. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPREC IATED, INTER ALIA, THAT SINCE, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THERE WAS NO BASIS, WARRANT OR JU STIFICATION FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C), HE OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO DROP THE SAME. 5. LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL HAS NOT PRESSED THE GROUN D NO.1 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. IT(SS)A NOS. 376/AHD/12 & 3 ORS. [PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES P. LTD.] -4 - 6. GROUND NO.2 CONCERNS DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A R. W. RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. 6.1 WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LEARNED AR FOR THE A SSESSEE, WE FIND THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT IS PERMISSIB LE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXEMPT INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING REGARD TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CORRTECH ENERGY P. LTD. 372 ITR 97 (GUJ.) . 6.2 IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES AP PEAL IS ALLOWED. 7. GROUND NO.3 CONCERNS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,16,365 /- IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES. 7.1. IT IS ALLEGED BY THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE COM PANY IS ENGAGED IN LARGE SCALE SUPPRESSION OF SALES AND A VERY LARGE P ART OF THE TOTAL SALES GOES UNACCOUNTED. THE AO HAS REFERRED TO CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT RECORDED. IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT SH RI SANJAY P. MEHTA ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED REMOV AL OF GOODS WITHOUT PREPARING INVOICES. THE AO ACCORDINGLY QUANTIFIED E SCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF RS.7,16,365/- BASED ON SUCH LOOSE PAPER SUPPORTE D BY CONFESSION THEREON. 7.2 THE CIT(A) IN FIRST APPEAL CONFIRMED THE AFORES AID ADDITION. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS REPRODU CED HEREUNDER: 6.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPE LLANT. THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THOUGH THE SALES OF RS.716,83 5/- APPEARING ON THE LOOSE PAPERS IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS, THERE ARE MANY CASH SALES RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE MORE THAN RS.716,835/-. IT WAS THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT SINCE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MANY CASH SALES HAVE BEEN SHOWN BY THE APP ELLANT, THE SALES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.716,835/- AS IS APPEARING ON TH E LOOSE PAPERS MAY BE TREATED AS ACCOUNTED. FURTHER, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ONLY THE GROSS PROFIT ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED SALES MAY BE TAXED AN D NOT THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE AR WAS ASKED T O PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF CASH SALES AS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS AND ALSO THE CASH SALES AS FOUND NOTED IN THE LOOSE PAPERS. THE AO WAS ALSO ASKED IT(SS)A NOS. 376/AHD/12 & 3 ORS. [PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES P. LTD.] -5 - TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT THE SATES AS APPEARI NG IN THE LOOSE PAPERS ARE ALSO SHOWN IN THE CASH SALES AS APPEARING IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, THE AR FAILED TO PROVE BEFORE ME THAT THE SALES AS APPEARING IN THE LOOSE PAPERS ARE ALSO SHOWN IN THE CASH SALE S AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS CORRECT THAT WHAT CAN BE TAXED IS THE INCOME AND NOT THE GROSS SALES. FOR THIS PURPOSE, T HE AR WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASES AND OTHER EXPE NSES INCURRED TOWARDS THE SALES OF RS.716,835/-. HE WAS ALSO ASKE D TO CLARIFY WHETHER THE CORRESPONDING EXPENSES INCLUDED THAT PURCHASES HAD BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR NOT. IN CASE THE EXPENSES AND THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THEN THE UNACCOUNTED SALES TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE TOTAL INCOME O THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, IF THE PURCHASES THEN THE EXPENSES HAVE NO T BEEN DEBITED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THEN IN THAT CASE, ONLY THE GP CAN BE ADDED AS THE INCOME OF THE APPEL LANT. BUT IN THAT CASE, THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 40A (3) ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AR ADMITTE D THAT ONLY THE DETAILS OF UNACCOUNTED SALES AND NOT PURCHASES HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE LOOSE PAPERS. IN OTHER WORDS, NO DETAILS OF PURCHAS ES AND OTHER EXPENSES CORRESPONDING TO SUCH SALES WERE FOUND NOT ED IN THE LOOSE PAPERS. THEREFORE, IT IS LIKELY THAT SUCH EXPENSES AND PURCHASES ARE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THAT CASE, THE ADDITION OF TOTAL SALES OF RS.716,835/- W OULD BE JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ENTRIES IN THE LOO SE PAPERS OF THE CORRESPONDING EXPENSES AND PURCHASES, THE ADDIT ION OF RS.716,835/- MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. 7.3 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE AS WELL AS PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ENTIRE SALES CANNOT BE ADDED AND ONLY SOME ESTIMATION IS POSSIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES 258 ITR 654(GUJ). WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH CONCESSION. THE RATI O OF DECISION WOULD COME INTO PLAY WHERE BOTH SALES AND EXPENSES ARE OUTSIDE BOOKS. THE DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF LOOSE PAPER W ERE FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN INSTANCES OF UNACC OUNTED SALES WERE FOUND. THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF THE PERSONS CONNE CTED TO THE ASSESSEE ALSO AFFIRMS THE CLANDESTINE SALES. THE STATEMENT SO GIVEN WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE SUCCESSFULLY RETRACTED. THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES SHOWN TO BE INCURRED, THE ENTIRE PROCEEDS FROM UNACCOUNTED SALES REQUIRES TO BE ADDED AS DONE BY THE AO AND CONFIRME D BY THE CIT(A). AS A COROLLARY, WHILE THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED F OR, THE SALES MADE REMAINED OUTSIDE BOOK. THUS, THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE GUJARAT HIGH IT(SS)A NOS. 376/AHD/12 & 3 ORS. [PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES P. LTD.] -6 - COURT DOES NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SU ITABLE ESTIMATION. WE THUS DECLINE TO INTERFERE. GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSE SSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. IT(SS)A NO. 255/AHD/2015-AY-2009-10 (ASSESSEES APP EAL) 9. THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED SEEKING TO C HALLENGE THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS.2,42,490/- ON ACCOUNT O F ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED SALES OF RS.7,16,365/- REPRESENTING GOODS SOLD DURI NG THE YEAR WITHOUT RECORDING THE SAME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 9.1 THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY ON THE ADDITIONS OF RS.7 ,16,365/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES MADE BY THE AO. IT WA S OBSERVED BY THE AO IN PARA 5.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT IS NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS AND HAS AGREED TO PAY TAX ON IT. 9.2 ON PERUSAL OF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE A O, WE OBSERVE THAT STATEMENT OF THE MANAGER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORD ED UNDER S.132(4) OF THE ACT WHERE THE UNDER-REPORTING OF SALES SURFACED . CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS WERE RECOVERED WHICH REFLECTED THE CLANDESTINE ACT. THE AO HAS ANALYZED THE FACT IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND RIGHTFULLY IMPOS ED THE PENALTY ON SUCH DELIBERATE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A), IN OUR VIEW, HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. NO GOOD REASON HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE AT THE TIME OF HEARING AT ALL TO ENABLE US T O LOOK AT THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES DIFFERENTLY. WE THUS DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NOS. 376/AHD/12 & 3 ORS. [PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES P. LTD.] -7 - IT(SS)A NO. 377/AHD/2012-AY-2010-11 (ASSESSEES APP EAL) 11. GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN OMITTING TO DEAL WITH T HE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IN RELATION TO THE VALIDITY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. SIN CE THE DISALLOWANCES /ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ALREADY FOR MS PART OF THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S. 143(3) AND FURTH ER NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT/MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS MADE ARE ULTRA VIRUS TO THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. HENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 2) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANT'S CASE THE LD. CTT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION U/S.14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF RS. 21,32,194/- WITHOUT APPRECIATIN G THE FACTUAL ASPECT AND HENCE, CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE SA ME. 2.2) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT S INCE NO NEW INVESTMENTS WERE MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON EVEN AS PER THE FINDING OF AO, UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE O F INTEREST U/S.14A OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS AND UNCALLED FOR. T HE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THAT SUCH DISALLOW ANCE OF INTEREST CAN BE MADE IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION ONL Y AND NOT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 4) IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJEC TING GROUND NO.7 OF THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL BEFORE HIM CHALLENGI NG THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT APPEALABLE. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPREC IATED, INTER ALIA, THAT SINCE, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THERE WAS NO BASIS, WARRANT OR JU STIFICATION FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C), HE OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO DROP THE SAME. 12. LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL HAS NOT PRESSED THE GROU ND NO.1 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 13. GROUND NO.2 CONCERNS DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A R .W. RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. IT(SS)A NOS. 376/AHD/12 & 3 ORS. [PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES P. LTD.] -8 - 13.1 WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT IS PERMISSIB LE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXEMPT INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING REGARD TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CORRTECH ENERGY P. LTD. 372 ITR 97 (GUJ.) . 13.2 IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES A PPEAL IS ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 1870/AHD/2012-AY-2010-11 (REVENUES APPEAL) 15. GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT OF RS.75,00,0 00/-. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.3,33,667/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 16. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HI T BY RECENTLY ISSUED CBDT CIRCULAR NO.17 OF 2019 DATED 08/08/2019 REVISI NG THE PREVIOUS THRESHOLDS PERTAINING TO TAX EFFECTS. IT IS INTER ALIA NOTICED THAT THE CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTION NO. F. NO. 279/MISC/M-93/2018-ITJ DT. 20/08/2019 HAS OBSERVED THAT CIRCULAR NO.17/2019 DATED 08/08/2019 RELATING TO ENHANCEMENT OF MONETARY LIMITS IS ALSO APPLICABLE T O ALL PENDING APPEALS. AS PER AFORESAID CIRCULAR READ WITH INSTRUCTION, AL L PENDING APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS A MEASURE FOR REDUCING LITIGATION WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT WHICH IS NOW REVISED AT RS.50 LAKHS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, T HE TAX EFFECT ON THE DISPUTED ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS STATED TO BE NOT EXCEEDING RS.50 LAKHS AND THEREFORE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS REQUIR ED TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE . IT(SS)A NOS. 376/AHD/12 & 3 ORS. [PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES P. LTD.] -9 - 17. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE FAIRLY ADMITTED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 17 OF 2019. ACCORDINGLY, APP EAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. HOWEVER, IT WILL BE OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO SEEK RESTORATION OF ITS APPEAL ON SHOWING INAPPLICA BILITY OF THE AFORESAID CBDT CIRCULAR IN ANY MANNER. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT (SS)A NO. 376 & 377/AHD/12 ARE ALLOWED WHEREAS ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO. 255/AHD/2015 AND REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1870/AH D/2012 ARE DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMA R KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 14/10/2019 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- ). / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE +. ,-.! /! / CONCERNED CIT 4. /!- / CIT (A) 2. 345 6!6-.7 ' -.&7 89, / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD :. 5;< / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 7 /8 ' -.&7 89, THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14/10/201 9
