The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad V. Shri Govindbhai Atmaram Dalwadi, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 446/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2520 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Tax effect

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ IT(SS)A.NO.446/AHD/2013 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 DCIT, CENT.CIR.2(2) AHMEDABAD. VS SHRI GOVINDBHAI ATMARAM DALWADI 44, YOGESHWAR BUNGALOWS GULAB TOWER ROAD THALTEJ AHMEDABAD 380 054. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 04/10/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05 /10/2016 $%/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CI T(A)-III, AHMEDABAD DATED 6.9.2013 FOR THE ASTT.YEAR 2009-10. 2. SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD .CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.32,14,720/- WHICH WAS A DDED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING, ADJOURNMEN T APPLICATION WAS BEING MOVED FROM THE OFFICE OF SHRI PIPARA & CO., CHARTER ED ACCOUNTANT. HOWEVER, NO POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS SUBMITTED ALONG W ITH APPLICATION. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.DR, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH T HE RECORD. IT(SS)A NO.446/AHD/2013 2 4. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT TAX EFFECT ON THE DEL ETION OF ADDITION OF RS.32,14,720/- WOULD BE ROUGHLY RS.9,60,000/-, BECA USE IT IS A CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL. IN VIEW OF THE LATEST CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.21/2015 DATED 10.12.2015 RESTRICTING FILE OF THE APPEAL BY THE RE VENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHERE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW RS.10,00,000/-, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. HOWEVER, IN CA SE LD.AO FINDS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED ANY ERROR IN CALCULATING THE TAX EFFECT, THE REVENUE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR RECAL L OF THIS ORDER. SUCH APPLICATION SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN THE LIMITATION P ROVIDED IN THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 5 TH OCTOBER, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANTN MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 05/10/2016