The ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad V. Shri Bhaubha Devisinh Vaghela, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 444/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0832 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGADISH
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 153A; 132; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(SS)A NOS: 443 & 444/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 & 2006-07) A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), AHMEDABAD V/S SHRI BHAUBHA DEVISINH VAGHELA 5-3-1, GAYATRI PARK, VAVLA ROAD, SANAND, DIST: AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AKBPV 7311A APPELLANT BY : SHRI JAGADISH CIT/DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 30-09-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 -09-2015 PER BENCH 1. THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD DATED 19.07.2012 FOR A.Y. 2005- 06 & 2006-07. IT(SS)A NOS. 443 & 444/AHD/2012 . A.YS. 2005-0 6 & 2006-07 2 2. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE APPEA LS OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS BUT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF BOTH THE YEARS ARE SIMILAR EXCEPT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS A ND AMOUNTS INVOLVED AND HE HAS COMMON SUBMISSIONS TO MAKE FOR BOTH THE APPE ALS AND THEREFORE BOTH THE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER. WE THEREFORE PRO CEED TO DISPOSE OF BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AN D PROCEED WITH THE FACTS IN IT(SS)A NO. 443/AHD/2012 FOR A.Y. 2005-06. 3. IN THIS CASE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE N OR ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO DECI DE THE APPEAL, EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD . WE FIRST TAKE UP IT(SS)A NO. 443/AHD/20 12 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 4. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE HAVING INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES AND AGRICULTURE. A WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION U/S. 132 WA S ISSUED AND SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ON 4.03.2010 AND THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S. 153A WAS ISSUED AND SERVED O N ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE TO WHICH ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCO ME ON 20.09.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 48,500/-. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 144 R.W.S. 153A(1)(B) VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2011 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 5,67,020/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO V IDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR A.Y. 2004-05 TO 2007-08 DATED 29.10.2012 GRANTE D PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. C IT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUN DS:- IT(SS)A NOS. 443 & 444/AHD/2012 . A.YS. 2005-0 6 & 2006-07 3 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIP TS FROM BHIKHUBHAI N PADSALA. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/-. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED -THAT THE ORDER OF THE C 1T (A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT . 5. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 20.09.2012 AND ACCORDINGLY THE MONETARY LIMIT FO R FILING APPEALS FIXED BY CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTION DATED 09-02-2011 WOULD BE APP LICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. ON PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IT IS SE EN THAT THE EFFECTIVE SOLITARY GROUND OF REVENUE IS THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS . 3 LACS BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE TAX EFFECT ON THE DISPUTED ADDITION WOULD BE BE LOW THE MONETARY LIMIT OF TAX OF RS. 3 LACS STIPULATED BY CBDT IN THE AFORESA ID INSTRUCTIONS. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. HAS ALSO NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS COVERED BY THE EXEMPTI ON SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE (8) OF THE AFORESAID CBDT INSTRUCTION AND THUS THE REVE NUE HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE SO AS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CIRCULAR FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BASED ON MONETARY LIMITS WOULD BE APPL ICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE, WITHOUT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON MERITS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL FI LED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE SAME ONLY ON THE BASIS OF CBDT INSTRUCTIONS REFERRED TO HEREINABOVE. 6. AS FAR AS APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2006-07, IS CONCERNED, TH E IMPUGNED ADDITION WHICH IS DISPUTED BY REVENUE BEFORE US, IS RS. 1.50 LACS AND THE TAX EFFECT OF IT(SS)A NOS. 443 & 444/AHD/2012 . A.YS. 2005-0 6 & 2006-07 4 WHICH WOULD ALSO BE BELOW THE MONETARY LIMIT OF TAX STIPULATED BY AFORESAID CBDT INSTRUCTIONS. WE THEREFORE, WITHOUT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON MERITS OF CASE, DISMISS THE APPEAL OF REVENUE AS BEING NON MAINTAINABLE. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30- 09 - 2015. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHM EDABAD