The ITO, Ward 2(3)(7),Surat, Surat V. Shri Dharmichand Sohanlal Jain, Surat

MA 33/SRT/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9452 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGLA
• Keywords: Block assessment; Tax effect
• Section: 254(2); 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM MA NOS.30 TO 34/SRT/2019 [IN IT(SS)A NOS.277,278,281,282 & 276/AHD/2017] ASSESSMENT YEARS:(2009-10,2010-11,2011-12,2014-15 & 2016-17) (VIRTUAL COURT HEARING) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT VS. SHRI DHARMICHAND SOHANLAL JAIN, 106, SARYU CHAMBERS, JADDA KAHDI, MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT-395 003. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO.: ABHPJ0584C (REVENUE) (ASSESSEE) REVENUE BY : MS ANUPAMA SINGLA - SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE. / DATE OF HEARING : 11/12/2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/01/2021 / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BY WAY OF THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, THE REVENUE HAS SOUGHT TO POINT OUT THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.08.2018. 2. THE ISSUE/MISTAKE INVOLVED IN ALL THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE IDENTICAL AND COMMON, THEREFORE THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAVE BEEN CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.30/SRT/2019 IS TAKEN AS THE LEAD CASE TO DECIDE THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS EN MASSE. 3. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS IS THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE COMPOSITE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), IS MORE THAN THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT CIRCULAR PAGE | 2 MA NOS.30 TO 34/SRT/2019 AYS.2009 TO 2012, 2014-15 & 2016- 17 DHARMICHAND SOHANLAL JAIN NO.17/2019 DATED 08.08.2019, THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BASED ON THE SEPARATE UNIT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR/INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT YEAR-WISE. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE, AS STATED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.30/SRT/2019 IS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST THE COMPOSITE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2008- 09 TO 2014-15. APPEAL FILED BEFORE ITAT ON SAME ISSUE FOR 2012-13 STILL PENDING DUE TO TAX EFFECT IS MORE THAN MONITORY LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY BOARD I.E. 20,54,468/-. THEREFORE, AS PER THE PARA 5 OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 3/2018 DATED 11.07.2018, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED HERE AS UNDER: 'THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CALCULATE THE TAX EFFECT SEPARATELY FOR EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IN \RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THE CASE OF EVERY ASSESSEE. IF, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, THE DISPUTED ISSUES ARISE IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL CAN BE FILED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN PARA 3. NO APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN PARA 3. IN OTHER WORDS, HENCEFORTH, APPEALS CAN BE FILED ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TAX EFFECT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, IN CASE OF A COMPOSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH COURT OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND COMMON ISSUES IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEALS SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF ALL SUCH ASSESSMENT YEARS EVEN IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMITS IN ANY OF THE YEAR(S), IF IT IS DECIDED TO FILE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR(S) IN WHICH TAX EFFECT EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED. IN CASE WHERE A COMPOSITE ORDER / 2 JUDGEMENT INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSEE, EACH ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY.' THE APPEALS FOR THE A.Y. 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 AND 2014-15 SHOULD ALSO SURVIVE IN SPITE OF THE FACT OF LOW TAX EFFECT IN THIS YEAR. FURTHER, TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY OF ALL A.Y. AND KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE, AND PROTECT THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IT IS REQUIRED TO FILE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT. 2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2, SURAT HAS APPROVED FILING OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD VIDE LETTER NO. SRT/PR.CIT-2/260A/RSJ/2018-19 DATED 14.02.2016. THEREFORE, A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON THE ABOVE ISSUE FOR A.Y.2016-17, 2009-10, 2010- 11,2011-12, AND 2014-15 AGAINST ORDER NO. NO.276 TO 278, 281 AND 282/ AHD/2017 /SRT DATED 31.08.2018 IS BEING FILED. 4. THEREFORE, WITH HELP OF THE CONTENTS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, AS NARRATED ABOVE, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE ARGUED THAT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE COMPOSITE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALL APPEALS OF THE REVENUE SHOULD BE RECALLED. PAGE | 3 MA NOS.30 TO 34/SRT/2019 AYS.2009 TO 2012, 2014-15 & 2016- 17 DHARMICHAND SOHANLAL JAIN 5. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT LATEST CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE CONCEPT OF COMPOSITE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE TAX EFFECT IS TO BE COMPUTED ASSESSMENT YEAR-WISE, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE NOTE THAT IN CASE OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 34/SRT/2019 FOR AY.2016-17, THERE IS A MISTAKE IN QUOTING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FACE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (CAUSE TITLE). THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 WRITTEN ON THE FACE OF THE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (CAUSE TITLE) SHOULD BE READ AS ASSESSMENT FOR 2008-09. 7. WE NOTE THAT AS PER THE LATEST SAID CIRCULAR OF CBDT, THE TAX EFFECT IS TO BE COMPUTED INDIVIDUALLY, THAT IS, ASSESSMENT YEAR-WISE. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE DETAILS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, YEAR-WISE WHICH DO NOT COME IN THE AMBIT OF TAX EFFECT: A SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE DHARMICHAND SOHANLAL JAIN & OTHERS GROUP ON 03.10.2013 AND THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED. BEING A SEARCH BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 29.01.2016 AND FOLLOWING PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY A.O. ASSESSMENT YEAR RETURNED INCOME ASSESSED INCOME ADDITION MADE 2008-09 4,38,850/- 33,43,169/- 29,04,319/- 2009-10 6,63,040/- 34,68,582/- 28,05,542/- 2010-11 1,27,010/- 45,71,493/- 44,44,483/- 2011-12 1,56,600/- 64,72,931/- 63,16,331/- 2012-13 3,25,270/- 71,90,520/- 68,65,250/- 2013-14 2,24,000/- 55,15,863/- 52,91,863/- 2014-15 3,87,530/- 31,65,231 /- 27,77,701/- AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE DETAILS, WE NOTE THAT YEAR-WISE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WERE PARTLY SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A), ARE BELOW THE TAX EFFECT LIMIT, AS PRESCRIBED IN THE LATEST CBDT CIRCULAR NO.17/2019 DATED 08.08.2019. THEREFORE, THESE REVENUES MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE, HENCE WE DISMISS ALL THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS. PAGE | 4 MA NOS.30 TO 34/SRT/2019 AYS.2009 TO 2012, 2014-15 & 2016- 17 DHARMICHAND SOHANLAL JAIN 7. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS (IN MA NOS. 30 TO 34/SRT/2019) FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 05/01/2021, AS PER RULE 34 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RULE 1963. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (DR. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LWJR /SURAT / DATE: 05/01/2021 SAMANTA, PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. PR.CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, SURAT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/SR. PS/PS ITAT, SURAT