The DCIT, Circle-1, JUNAGADH V. M/s. Rajoo Engineers Ltd., Manavadar

MA 22/RJT/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1214 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR JAYANT B JHAVERI
• Assessee Lawyers: M N MANVAR CA
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Audit objection; Tax effect

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. .. .. BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA JM AND SHRI D. K. SRIVASTAVA AM MA NO. 22/RJT/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.02/RJT/2011) / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JUNAGADH ( / APPELLANT) M/S. RAJOO ENGINEERS LTD., JUNAGADH ROAD, MANAVADAR PAN: AABCR 3204 M / RESPONDENT ! '# / REVENUE BY DR JAYANT B JHAVERI, DR $% ! '# / ASSESSEE BY SHRI M N MANVAR, CA ' & ' %( / DATE OF HEARING 04.10.2013 ) %( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15.10.2013 / ORDER .. , / T. K. SHARMA, J. M. : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER:- 2. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED A SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE HON. ITAT, AGAINST THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A)-IV, DATED 28/10/ 2010, IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)- IV/0454/04-05, FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01, IN THE CASE OF ABOVE NAMED ASSESSEE. THE SAID APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY THE HON. ITAT BY DIS MISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL THE HON. ITAT HELD THAT- IN VIEW OF THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.5/2007 DATED 16 -07-2007, WHEREIN MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS (IN INCOME TAX MATTERS) AND OTHER CONDITIONS WERE SPECIFIED FOR FILING APPE ALS BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNALS ACCORDING TO WHICH THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL IS RS.200000/-, THEREFORE, ALL ITS DEPARTMENTAL OFFICERS ARE NOT FORCED TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WHENEVER TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.2,00,000/-. THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT OUGHT TO HAVE NOT FILE THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT IS BINDING ON THE AO. THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSING AS NOT MAINTAINABLE . 3. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE, FOR THE RELEVANT AY A REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION WAS INVOLVED AND THE SAID A UDIT OBJECTION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, WHILE FILING THE SECOND APPEAL, AT GROUND NO.1, THE AO HAS SUCCESSFULLY MENTIONED THAT IN THE IN THE CASE, AN AUDIT OBJECTION IS INVOLVED, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTE D BY THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER INSTRUCTION NO.03/201 1 DATED 09.2.2011, ADVERSE JUDGMENTS RELATING TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES SHOULD B E CONTESTED ON MERITS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE TAX EFFECT ENTAILED IS LES S THAN THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED OR THERE IS NO TAX EFFECT. (C) WHETHER REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION IN THE DEPARTM ENT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE DEPARTMENT HAS F ILED THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE HON. ITAT BUT THE ITAT HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT BUT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT TH E AUDIT OBJECTION IS INVOLVED IN MA 22-RJT-2012- RAJOO ENGINEERS LTD 2 THIS CASE. THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION THERE IS AN APP ARENT MISTAKE IN THE APPELLATE ORDER REFERRED TO ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE HON. ITAT MAY BE REQUESTED TO KINDLY CONSIDER THE MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATION, AND PASS NECESSARY RECTIFICATION ORDER, COPIES OF ALL DOCUME NTS ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF AFORESAID MISCELLANEOU S APPLICATION, ON BEHALF OF REVENUE DR. JAYANT B JHAVERI, DR APPEARED AND CONTE NTED THAT IN THE BOTTOM OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN OFFICE NOTE IT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THIS ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN RE-OPENED ON THE BASIS OF REVENUE AUDIT OB JECTION AND REMEDIAL ACTION APPROVED BY THE CIT., RAJKOT-III, RAJKOT VID E HIS LETTER NO.CIT-III/TECH/68- RA-25/03-04 DTD. 22.03.2004. HE CONTENDED THAT THIS FACT WAS IGNORED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF LOW TAX EFFECT AS PER INSTRUCTION NO.03/2011 DATED 09.02.2011. THE LD AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, COULD NOT CONTROVERT AGAINS T THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.02/RJT/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN DUE COURSE OF TIME. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( *.#. , % D. K. SRIVASTAVA ) ( .#. -. / T. K. SHARMA) #( '/ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '/ /JUDICIAL MEMBER /#- 0/1/ ORDER DATE 15.10.2013 /RAJKOT *BT !'# $%'& / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT- THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JUNAGADH 2. /RESPONDENT- M/S. RAJOO ENGINEERS LTD., JUNAGADH RO AD, MANAVADAR 3. '151 % & 6% / CONCERNED CIT-III, RAJKOT 4. & 6%- / CIT (A)-IV, RAJKOT 5. :;< % , , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. <* >? / GUARD FILE. /#- '# / BY ORDER TRUE COPY PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, RAJKOT