Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131983 (ITAT-SURAT)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
03-10-2023
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
31-08-2023
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
19-07-2023
Judgement Text
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM ͪवͪवध आवेदन /MA Nos. 48/SRT/2023 [Arising in IT(SS)A Nos. 91/SRT/2022] Assessment Years: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat, Room No.508, 5 th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395991 Vs. Shankar Nebhumal Uttamchandani, 15, Adarsh Society, Athwalines, Surat-395001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABPU 3188 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) ͪवͪवध आवेदन /MA Nos. 49/SRT/2023 [Arising in ITA Nos. 322/SRT/2022] Assessment Years: (2013-14) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-4, Surat-395991 Vs. Hiren Shankarbhai Uttamchandani, 15, Adarsh Society, Athwalines, Surat-395001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAKPU 5035 F (Applicant) (Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से /Assessee by Shri Ramesh Malpani, C.A राजèव कȧ ओर से /Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing 01/09/2023 उɮघोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement /09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: By way of both captioned Miscellaneous Applications, the Revenue has sought to point out that a mistake apparent from record within the Page | 2 MA Nos. 48-49/SRT/2023 (a/o IT(SS)A No.91/SRT/22 & ITA No.322/SRT/22) Shankar N.Uttamchandai & Hiren S. Uttamchandani meaning of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) has crept in the common order of the Tribunal dated 30.03.2023. 2. Since both Miscellaneous Applications, have arisen out of a combined order passed by the Tribunal in IT(SS) Nos.91/SRT/2022 & ITA No.322/SRT/2022, dated 30.03.2023, therefore a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. First we shall take MA No.48/SRT/2023 for assessment year 2017- 18, wherein the contention raised by the Revenue are that Hon'ble ITAT has relied upon tax computation made by ITBA/Assessing Officer. In this connection, it is brought to notice that while finalizing the assessment procedure u/s 147 r.ws..143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and also made an addition of Rs.60,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act in which the ITBA system has wrongly computed the tax on the above additions. The Tribunal has relied on the tax effect computed by ITBA system/AO, which was wrong. Therefore, Ld. DR for the Revenue contended that order passed by the Tribunal may be recalled. 4. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition of Rs.5 lakh does not fall u/s 115BBE of the Act and it falls under normal rate of tax @ 30%. Therefore considering the rate of 30% on Rs.5 lakh, the tax effect comes below Rs.50 lakhs and therefore there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Moreover, the tax effect computed by ITBA/Assessing Office was itself below Rs.50,00,000/- Hence, the MA filed by the Revenue may be dismissed. Page | 3 MA Nos. 48-49/SRT/2023 (a/o IT(SS)A No.91/SRT/22 & ITA No.322/SRT/22) Shankar N.Uttamchandai & Hiren S. Uttamchandani 5. We have heard both the parties. We note that Tribunal has examined the tax effect which was below Rs.50 lakh as Rs.5 lakh is to be taxed as normal rate and not u/s 115BE of the Act. Therefore the tax effect would be less than the prescribed monetary limit of Rs.50 lakh. Moreover, the ITBA portal/Assessing Office has computed the tax effect which was below Rs.50 lakh. Hence, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of Revenue on account of low tax effect. Therefore there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and therefore MA filed by Revenue is hereby dismissed. 6. In the result, Revenue’s MA No.48/SRT/2023 is dismissed. 7. Coming to M.A. No.49/SRT/2023 for A.Y 2013-14, wherein contention raised by Revenue (DR) are that the Hon'ble ITAT has relied upon tax computation made by ITBA system, which was wrong. In this connection, it is brought to notice that while finalizing the assessment procedure u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, the ITBA system had wrongly computed the tax on addition made u/s 69A of the Act amounting to Rs.49,87,218/-. In this case, during the assessment proceeding, the addition of Rs.1,64,26,178/- was made u/s 69A of the Act. As per the provision of Section 115BBE of the Act, tax @ 30% is computed, separately, if the income determined by the AO includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance or set off of any loss shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income. However, the ITBA portal has wrongly computed the tax on the addition made u/s 69A of the Act. Therefore, order of Tribunal may be re-called. Page | 4 MA Nos. 48-49/SRT/2023 (a/o IT(SS)A No.91/SRT/22 & ITA No.322/SRT/22) Shankar N.Uttamchandai & Hiren S. Uttamchandani 8. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has himself worked out tax effect which was below Rs.50 lakh. When the Department itself showing that the tax effect which was below Rs.50 lakh then appeal before the Tribunal is not maintainable and it should be dismissed and therefore there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue may be dismissed. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We note that the tax effect computed by the Assessing Officer is below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs.50 lakh as mentioned in the order of Tribunal. We have also examined the tax effect computed by Assessing Officer and noted that tax effect computed by Assessing Officer is correct. Therefore, we do not find any merit in Miscellaneous Application filed by Revenue. Hence, this Miscellaneous Application filed by Revenue is dismissed. 10. In the result, Miscellaneous Application No.49/SRT/2023 by Revenue is dismissed. 11. In combined result, both Miscellaneous Application Nos.48/SRT/2023 & 49/SRT/2023 are dismissed. Registry is directed to place one copy of this order in all appeals folder / case file(s). Order is pronounced in the open court on 04/10/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER स ू रत/Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 04/10/2023 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S Page | 5 MA Nos. 48-49/SRT/2023 (a/o IT(SS)A No.91/SRT/22 & ITA No.322/SRT/22) Shankar N.Uttamchandai & Hiren S. Uttamchandani Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat
AI Insights
The case involves two Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, which had dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to low tax effect. The Revenue contended that the tax computations relied upon by the Tribunal were incorrect, leading to a recall of the Tribunal's orders. The Tribunal examined the tax effects of the additions made under sections 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, which were taxed at normal rates and found to be below the Rs.50 lakh threshold, thus not warranting further appeal. The Tribunal dismissed both MAs, affirming the correctness of the initial tax computations and the application of the law.
