The DCIT, TDS Circle, Baroda V. Prayas Engineering Ltd., Anand

MA 217/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5286 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAMES KURIEN
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Audit objection; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D/(A-1) BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM AND SHRI MANISH BORA D, A.M. M.A. NO.217/AHD/2016 IN ITA NO.2612/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2008-09 DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, BARODA., VS. M/S PRAYAS ENGINEERING LTD., APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN BRDPO1281A APPELLANT BY SHRI JAMES KURIEN, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR DATE OF HEARING: 03/02/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07/02/2017 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF REVENUE STATING AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE HONBLE ITAT DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE TAX EFFEC T WAS MORE THAN MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN THE CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED ID.12.20 15 I.E. THE TAX EFFECT IS RS.17,88,452/- 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ANDM JAWJTTWRLHON'BLE ITAT DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE INVOL VED IS RELATED TO REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION RAISED AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE, HENCE THE CASE FALLS UNDER THE EXCEPTIONAL CLAUSE 8(C) OF THE BOARD'S CIRCULAR NO.211/2015 DATED 10/12/2015. MA NO.217/AHD/2016 IN ITA NO.2612/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 2 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND OR ALTER THE ABOVE GROUNDS, AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY. RELIEF CLAIMED IN M.A. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2015 OF HON 'BLE ITAT, 'A-L' BENCH, AHMEDABAD BE AMENDED/MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY AND THE O RDER BE RECALLED FOR FRESH HEARING. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES AND GONE T HROUGH THE RECORD. WE OBSERVE THAT VIDE COMMON ORDER GROUP OF DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS WERE DISMISSED DUE TO LOW TAX EFFECT WHEREI N THIS MATTER WAS ALSO INCLUDED DUE TO OVERSIGHT, WHICH IS NOT WITHIN THE BELOW TAX LIMIT OF RS.10,00,000/- AND IS NOT COVERED BY THE CBDT CI RCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10.12.2015. THIS IS AN APPARENT M ISTAKE. THEREFORE, WE RECALL THE APPEAL FOR FRESH ADJUDICAT ION. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL IN DUE CO URSE OF TIME AFTER ISSUING THE NOTICE OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 3. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 TH FEBRUARY, 2017 SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 07/02/2017 MAHATA/- MA NO.217/AHD/2016 IN ITA NO.2612/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD MA NO.217/AHD/2016 IN ITA NO.2612/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 4 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 07/02/2017 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 07/02/2017 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 07/02/17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: