THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR V. SHRI SHRI B.L. AGRAWAL, RAIPUR (CG)

MA 3/BIL/2017

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue against an ITAT order which had dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to the tax effect being below Rs. 10 lakhs, as stipulated by CBDT's Circular No.21/2015. The original appeal by the Revenue challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which were later deleted by the CIT(A). The Revenue sought to recall the ITAT's order, arguing that the complexities of the case warranted a review despite the monetary limit. However, the ITAT found no applicable exceptions in the Circular that would justify revisiting the case under the specified financial threshold.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 138169 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIDEBASHISH LAHIRI
• Keywords: Audit objection; Tax effect; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.03/RPR/2017 (ITA No.115/BLPR/2012) िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2010-11 DCIT-2(1), Raipur Vs Shri B.L. Agrawal, Near Radha Krishna Saw Mills, New Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur PAN: ACLPA5669A Applicant Respondent Applicant by Shri R.B. Doshi Respondent by ShriDebashish Lahiri Date of hearing 04/11/2022 Date of pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is a Miscellaneous Application filed by Revenue against ITAT order in ITA No.115/BLPR/2012, dated 20.10.2016 requesting to recall the impugned ITAT order. The Revenue has contented the following in the MA: “In this case the, Hon'ble Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue pointing out that thetax effect involved is below Rs. 10,00,000/- in view ofCBDT's Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 30.12.2011 passedassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and made following twoadditions:-. MA No.03/RPR/2017 in ITA No.115/BPLR/2012 Shri B.L. Agarwal 2 (i) Addition to the tune ofRs.15.00 lacs on protective basis on account of cash found from thelocker of the assessee's brother Shri Pawan Kumar Agrawal with Bank ofBaroda. (ii) Addition to the tune ofRs. 3.00 lacs on protective basis, on account of cash found from the lockerof the assessee with HDFC Bank. (iii) Addition to the tune ofRs.14,00,119 on protective basis on account of alleged expenses incurredthrough debit cards belonging to assessee's brother Shri Ashok Kumar Agrawal. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee has filed an appeal before Ld. Commissioner ofIncome tax (Appeals) and Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted theaddition mentioned above. Against the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Department has filed an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT andHon'ble ITAT have decided the issue, taking into the monetary limit fixed for filing of appeal before theTribunal as per CBDT's Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, without deciding the case on merits. It is proper to mention here that there in this case for each of the A.Ys 2005-06 to 2009-10, thereare two sets of assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A and u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 respectively, thereby giving rise to complications which may have adverse effect on thedetermination of income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11. Therefore, it is requested to set aside the.matter to the file of the A.O. Hence, Miscellaneous Application is being filed.” 3. The ld. DR submitted that earlier ITAT had dismissed the Revenue’s appeal vide order dated 20.10.2016 on the ground that tax effect was below Rs.10 lakhs. The ld. DR read out the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue. MA No.03/RPR/2017 in ITA No.115/BPLR/2012 Shri B.L. Agarwal 3 4. The ld. authorized representative of the assessee submitted that the present case does not come under any of the clauses mentioned in clause 8 of Circular No.21/2015. The ld. AR read out the clause 8 of Circular No.21/2015. Hence , he submitted that MA is not maintainable. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. The ITAT in ITA No.115/BLPR/2012 vide order dated 20.10.2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 had dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on the ground that the tax effect was below Rs.10 lakhs following CBDT Circular number 21/2015. It is an admitted position that the tax effect is below Rs.10 lakhs. The ld. DR has admitted that the tax effect is below Rs.10 lakhs. We have specifically asked the ld. DR to explain which exception clause of Circular No.21/2015 will be applicable in the present case. However, the ld. DR could not specify the same. As per clause 8 of Circular No.21/2015, the following are the cases in which the Revenue can file an appeal even if the tax effect is below the monetary limit mentioned in the Circular. Clause 8 reads as under: “8. Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is no tax effect: MA No.03/RPR/2017 in ITA No.115/BPLR/2012 Shri B.L. Agarwal 4 (a) Where the Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule are under challenge, or (b) Where Board’s order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or (c) Where Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, or (d) Where the addition relates to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts. 6. The Revenue could not explain under which sub-clause of clause 8 the case under consideration falls. We specifically asked the Revenue whether any audit objection. The Revenue stated that there is no audit objection. In these facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fact that tax effect is below Rs.10 lakhs and the case does not come under any of the exception clauses mentioned in clause 8 of Circular No.21/2015. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. 7. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12 th December, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 12 th Dec, 2022 GCVSR MA No.03/RPR/2017 in ITA No.115/BPLR/2012 Shri B.L. Agarwal 5 आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Applicant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The concerned CIT(A). 4. The concerned Pr. CIT. 5. DR, ITAT, “Raipur” Bench. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT,Pune.