The ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad V. Shri Pranav Dineshbhai Shah, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 789/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2191 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R I PATEL
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

,, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., , !' BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SS) ./ I.T(SS).A. NO.789/AHD/2010 (REVENUE) AND CO NO.332/AHD/10 AY 2007-08 (ASSESSEE) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1) AHMEDABAD / VS. PRANAV DINESHBHAI SHAH 9, SHALIMAR KRISHNA SOCIETY ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD $ ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AIHPS 2454 F ( $' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ()$' / RESPONDENT AND CROSS OBJECTOR ) $'* / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.I. PATEL, CIT-DR ()$'+* / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEEPAK SONI, AR ,+ / DATE OF HEARING 13/06/2016 -./+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13/06/2016 / O R D E R PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, AHMEDABAD D ATED 30/09/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN CROSS OBJECTION THEREOF. IT(SS)A NO.789/AHD/2010(BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.332/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT VS. PRANAV DINESHBHAI SHAH ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 2 - 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,08,390/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADMITTING EVIDENCES IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T.R ULES, 1962 AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE SUCH EVIDENCES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INSSPITE OF GIVING SUFFICIEN T OPPORTUNITIES. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE CREDIT FOR 24 CTS. OF DIAMONDS DISCLOSED IN THE VDI S 1997 SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR WORKING OUT THE UNEXPLAINED JEW ELLERY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE 2 4 CTS. DIAMONDS DISCLOSED IN THE VDIS 1997 FORMS PART OF T HE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.14,0 8,000/-. 2.1. IN CROSS OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- THE ASSESSEE BEING DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PRESENTS THIS CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE SAME ON THE FOLLOWING AMONGST OTHER GRO UNDS. 1.0 THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BAD I N LAW SINCE IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE FACTS OF YOUR ASSESSEES CASE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 2.0 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 2.1 ARE GROSSLY INCORRECT AND CONTR ARY TO THE FACTS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT EACH AND EVERY NOTICE ISS UED BY THE IT(SS)A NO.789/AHD/2010(BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.332/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT VS. PRANAV DINESHBHAI SHAH ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 3 - ASSESSING OFFICER WAS COMPLIED WITH. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT EACH AND EVERY DETAILS WAS PLACED ON THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. THE OBSERVATIONS BEING CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND BAD IN LAW BE QUASHED. 3.0 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT DELETING RS.13,25,227/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT SOURCE O F EACH AND EVERY ORNAMENTS AND JEWELLERY WAS EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ALONGWITH THE EVIDENCES. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING NON-FURNISHING OF THE DETAILS ARE INCORRECT AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT C IT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED ADDITION OF RS.13,25,227/-. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE APP EAL OF THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT AN D, THEREFORE, BE DISMISSED AND THEREFORE THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT PRESSED. THE LD. SR.D.R. FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT ON THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS IS LESS THAN THE LIMIT PRESCRIBE D BY THE CBDT CIRCULAR OF 10/12/2015 BEARING NO. 21 OF 2015. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERI ALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON PERUSING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED B Y THE REVENUE, WE FIND THAT REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE AGGREGATING A DDITION OF RS.14,08,390/- THE TAX EFFECT OF WHICH IS BELOW RS .10 LACS. AS PER THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT ) DATED 10/12/2015 (CIRCULAR NO. 21 OF 2015), NO DEPARTMENT APPEALS ARE TO BE FILED AGAINST RELIEF GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) BEFORE THE INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL IT(SS)A NO.789/AHD/2010(BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.332/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT VS. PRANAV DINESHBHAI SHAH ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 4 - UNLESS THE TAX EFFECT, EXCLUDING INTEREST EXCEEDS R S. 10 LACS AND IT FURTHER STATES THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS WILL APPLY RETROSPECTI VELY TO THE PENDING APPEALS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE IT IS AN UNDISP UTED FACT THAT ON THE ADDITIONS WHICH ARE IN DISPUTE, THE TAX EFFECT IS L ESS THAN RS. 10 LACS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD BY THE REV ENUE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVERED BY EXEMPTIONS SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE (8) OF THE AFORESAID CBDT CIRCULAR, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS OF TH E AFORESAID CBDT CIRCULAR WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DISMISS THE APPEA L OF REVENUE WITHOUT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON MERITS OF THE CASE. HOW EVER, IN CASE THERE IS ANY ERROR IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE TAX EFFECT INVO LVED OR IF FOR ANY REASON, THE AFORESAID CBDT CIRCULAR IS NOT APPLICAB LE, IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO SEEK REVIVAL OF THE APPEAL. 5. AS FAR AS THE CROSS OBJECTION NO.332/AHD/2010 FO R AY 2007-08 [ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A 789/AHD/2010-FOR AY 2007-08 ] FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT S INCE THE REVENUES APPEAL(SUPRA) IS NOT MAINTAINABLE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSED. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. IT(SS)A NO.789/AHD/2010(BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.332/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT VS. PRANAV DINESHBHAI SHAH ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 5 - 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECT ION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13 /06/2016 SD/- SD/- .. () () ( R.P. TOLANI) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 13 / 06 /2016 3..,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $' / THE APPELLANT 2. ()$' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 456 7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD 5. 89:(56 , 56/ , 4 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :<=, / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, )8( //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 13.6.16 (COVERED CASE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 13.6.16 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.14.6.16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 14.6.16 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