The ITO, Ward-3(3)(4), Surat V. Shri Shreyans Vadilal Shah, Surat

MA 59/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3806 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA SINGHSR D R
• Keywords: Audit objection; Tax effect

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 59/AHD/2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1198/AHD/2011 ) AND ITA NO. 1198/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(4), SURAT .. APPLICANT (ORIGINAL APPELLANT) VS SHRI SHREYANS VADILAL SHAH FLAT NO.9, DARIYAMAHAL APPTT., MUGLISARA ROAD, MUGLISARA, SURAT .. RESPONDENT PAN : BAMPS 0719 P ASSESSEE(S) BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSION REVENUE BY : SHRI NARENDRA SINGH, SR-DR / DATE OF HEARING 01/01/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06/01/2016 / O R D E R PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE MA NO.59/AHD/2015 IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 19. 02.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1198/AHD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. [ 2. BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO.1198/AHD/2011 DT D 19.02.2015. MA NO 59 AHD 2015 & ITA NO.1198 AHD 2011 ITO VS. SHREYANS VADILAL SHAH ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 - 2 - 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTE D BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS D ISMISSED BY THE ITAT BY OBSERVING THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, NOTICE OF HEAR ING COULD NOT BE EFFECT ON THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE REV ENUE IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL AND THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS N OT GOT THE NOTICE SERVED IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY, IT HAS NOT BEEN PO SSIBLE TO CONDUCT THE ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 254(1). HOWEVER, REVENUE IS AT LIBERTY TO GET THIS ORDER RECALLED TO DECIDE ON MERIT IN CASE ASSESSEE IS TRACED BY THE REVENUE WITHIN REASONABLE TIME. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS TRACED OUT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS PRO VIDED THE SAME NOW ON RECORD; AND ACCORDINGLY MOVED THIS MISC. APPLICATIO N FOR RECALLING THE ORDER, AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 19.0 2.2015. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, WE ALLOW THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. HOWEVER, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A W RITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 29.12.2015, WHEREBY HE CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE RE CENT CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 IN F.NO.279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ (PT) DATED 10TH DECEMBER 2015, THE REVISED LIMIT FOR PREFERRIN G REVENUE'S APPEALS BEFORE ITAT IS RS.10,00,000/-. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT REVE NUE'S APPEAL IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS.10,00,000/; THEREFORE, THE REVENUE'S APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED AS THE TAX EFFECT BEING BELOW THE PRESCRI BED LIMIT. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT TH E AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE FIND THAT PRIMA-FACIE THIS APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 IN F.NO.279/MI SC. 142/2007-ITJ (PT) MA NO 59 AHD 2015 & ITA NO.1198 AHD 2011 ITO VS. SHREYANS VADILAL SHAH ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 - 3 - DATED 10TH DECEMBER 2015, VIDE WHICH IT HAS BEEN PR OVIDED THAT IF THE TAX EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)S ORDER IS BELOW RS.10,00,000/-, THEN THAT ORDER WOULD NOT BE CHALLE NGED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN FURTHER APPEAL. THE BOARD HAS PROVIDED EXEMPTIONS AT CLAUSE (8) OF THE INSTRUCTIONS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT THES E INSTRUCTIONS WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE, IF VIRES OF ANY PROVISIONS HAS BEEN QUA SHED BY IMPUGNED ORDER OR ADDITION WAS MADE ON SOME AUDIT OBJECTIONS OR THE A DDITION RELATES TO UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN ASSETS/BANK ACCOUNTS, ETC. WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE EXEMPTION CLAUSE AND THE T AX IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-. THEREFORE, THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND HENCE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED; WHILE THE INCOME-TAX APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 6TH JANUARY 2016 A T AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ANIL CHATURVEDI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 06/01/2016 BIJU T., PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! / CONCERNED CIT 4. ! ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. $%& '' , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &,- . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD