Shri Natvarlal Kacharalal Vyas, Mehsana V. The Dy.CIT.,Cent.Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

MA 162/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9215 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A TINKEY
• Assessee Lawyers: R B RATHI
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

, , , , A, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, A BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) )* + ) )* + ) )* + ) ' ' ' ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MA NO.162/AHD/2012 IN ITA NO.1760/AHD/2008 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2001-2002] DCIT, CIR.1(3) AHMEDABAD. /VS. SHRI NATWARLAL K. VYAS C/O. R.B. RATHI & COMPANY 35, NEW CLOTH MARKET RAIPUR GATE, AHMEDABAD PIN : 380 002. ( (( ( APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) -& . / )/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.B. RATHI + . / )/ REVENUE BY : SHRI A. TINKEY 1 . &(*/ DATE OF HEARING : 19 TH OCTOBER, 2012 234 . &(*/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-10-2012 )5 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: BY THIS MISC. APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2001- 2002, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE DISPUTED TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE WAS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS, THE MONETARY LIMIT FIXED BY THE CBDT FOR MA NO.162/AHD/2012 -2- FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AND THEREFOR E THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE WAS WRONGLY ENTERTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GONE INTO THE MERITS OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THIS CASE A ND SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE TRIBUNAL IN LIMINE . THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISPUTED TAX AMOUNT IN THIS CASE IS NIL FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF R S.17.68 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO WAS DELETED IN THE FIRST APPEAL BY THE CI T(A), AND THEREFORE THE TAX PAYABLE AS PER THE ASSESSED INCOME AFTER GI VING EFFECT TO THE CIT(A)S ORDER COMES TO NIL. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-2003, 2003-2004 AND 2004-2005 AND ALSO F OR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 AND 2000-200 1, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE WERE DISMISSED IN LIMINE BY THE TRIBUNAL, AS THE DISPUTED TAX AMOUNT WAS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS AND MI SC. APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE ALSO REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 26.8.2011 IN MA NOS.83 TO 88/AHD/2011. 2. THE LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEES RETURNED LOSS OF RS.7.27 LAKHS WAS ASSESSED BY THE AO AT INCOME O F RS.17.68 LAKHS. THIS ADDITION OF RS.17.68 LAKHS DELETED BY THE CIT( A), WAS DISPUTED AND CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE MAIN GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL READ AS UNDER: 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIR ECTING TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.17,68,750/- MADE BY THE A O ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME EARNED FROM A SCHEME OF PLOT. MA NO.162/AHD/2012 -3- 3. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE DISPUTED ADDITION IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS RS.17.68 LAKHS, THE DISPUTED TAX EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT OF RS.2 LAKHS, AND THERE FORE THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PE RUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ALSO CONTENTS OF THE MISC . APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE INCOME WAS ASSES SED BY THE AO FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002 AT RS.17,68, 750/-. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AND AFTER GIVING EF FECT TO THE CIT(A)S ORDER, THE ASSESSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CAME TO NIL. THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AN D ITS GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE DISPUTED ADDITION IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS TO THE T UNE OF RS.17,68,750/-, ON WHICH THE DISPUTED TAX EFFECT IS CERTAINLY MORE THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL I.E. RS.2 LAKHS. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHERE THE TAX LIABILITY AFTER ALLOWING OF APPEAL EF FECT OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER COMES TO NIL OR LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS, NO DEPA RTMENTAL APPEAL COULD BE PREFERRED TO THE TRIBUNAL, COULD NOT BE SU STAINED. WE FIND THAT ANY OTHER VIEW TAKEN IN THIS REGARD SHALL RESU LT IN ABSURDITY AS, IF THIS VIEW IS ACCEPTED THEN IN CASE WHERE THE ADDITI ONS OF CRORES AND CRORES OF RUPEES IS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) IN FULL T HE REVENUE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO FILE ANY APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL. THIS IS NOT THE SPIRIT OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR IN FIXING THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. FIXATION OF THE MONETA RY LIMIT OF RS.2 LAKHS (NOW RS.3 LAKHS) BY THE CBDT IS TO AVOID LITI GATION IN SMALL ADDITION CASES ONLY. IN THIS CASES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DISPUTED TAX AMOUNT ON THE DISPUTED ADDITION OF RS.17.68 LAKHS MA NO.162/AHD/2012 -4- BEING CLEARLY MORE THAN RS.2 LAKHS, THE APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE COULD NOT BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE AND WAS RIGHTLY DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON MERITS OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE HOLD THAT THERE BEING NO MIS TAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE PRESENT MA BEING WITHOUT ANY MERI T, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, MA OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD