The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Bodal Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad

MA 89/AHD/2020

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department (Revenue) seeking to recall an ITAT order that dismissed their appeal against M/s Bodal Chemicals Ltd. The appeal was initially dismissed due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 50 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The Revenue argued that the case fell under an exception due to audit objections, referencing CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. However, during the proceedings, it was revealed that the audit objections were not accepted by the assessing officer, leading to the dismissal of the Miscellaneous Applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135805 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2020
• Laws Referred To: CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, Section 254(2) of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MSSAUMYAPANDEYJAIN; WAYOFTHISMISCELLANEOUSAPPLICATIONISSEEKINGTORECALL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIS.NDIVATIA

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’A”BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER And MsMADHUMITAROY,JUDICIALMEMBER, MANos.89-90/Ahd/2020 in आयकरअपीलसं ./ITANos.376-377/Ahd/2019 धििाधरणवरध / Asstt.Years:2003-2004 D.C.I.T, CentralCircle-1(1), Ahmedabad. Vs. M/sBodalChemicalsLtd, PlotNo.125-124, Phase-1, G.I.D.C,Vatva, Ahemdabad. PAN:AAACB8597Q Revenueby:MsSaumyaPandeyJain,Sr.D.R Assesseeby:ShriS.NDivatia,A.R सुिवाईकीतारीख/DateofHearing:28/07/2023 घोरणाकीतारीख /DateofPronouncement:02/08/2023 आदेश/ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: TherevenuebywayofthisMiscellaneousApplicationisseekingtorecall theorderoftheITATonthereasoningthatthereisanapparentmistakeinthe orderoftheITAT. 2.Inthepresentcase,theTribunalhasdismissedtheappealfiledbythe RevenueonthegroundthatthetaxeffectinvolvedinthedisputewaslessthanRs. 50lakhs.Accordingly,theappealfiledbytherevenuewasnotmaintainablein termsoftheCBDTCircularbearingNo.17of2019dated08/08/2019.However, M.ANo.89-90/Ahd/2020 in ITANo.376-377/Ahd/2019 A.Y.2003-04 2 accordingtotheRevenue,thecaseoftheassesseefallsunderexceptioni.e. reopeningwasdonebasedontheAuditObjection.Therefore,theissueraisedby therevenueistobeadjudicatedonmeritintermsofthepara10Cofthecircular No.3of2018issuedbytheCBDT.Thus,thelearnedDRcontendedthatthereisa mistakeapparentfromtherecordintheorderoftheITATwhichneedstobe rectifiedbyrecallingtheorderandre-adjudicationofthesameafresh.However, atthetimeofhearing,aquestionwasraisedbythebenchtotheLd.DRwhether theAuditObjectionraisebytherevenuewasadmitted.Tothis,theLd.DRfairly admittedthatAuditObjectionwasnotacceptedbytherevenue.Tothiseffectthe Ld.DRfiledaletterdated30.05.2019.Therelevantportionoftheletteris reproducedasunder: To, ThePr.CommissionerofIncome-tax(central). Ahmedabad Sir, [Throughproperchannel] Sub:AppealproceedingsinthecaseofM/s.BodalChemicalsLtd.ForAY 2003-04inMANo.376&377/Ahd/2019-reg Ref:No.Pr.CIT(C)/Ahd/121/ITAT/19-20dated29.07.2019 Kindlyrefertotheabovecaptionedsubject. 2.Inthisregard,itistomentionthattheauditobjectioninquestion(LARNo.789ParaNo. 22&33)incaseoftheabovementionedassesseeforAY2003-04hasnotbeenacceptedbythe thenassessingofficer(ITO,Ward-1(2),Ahmedabad)andthesamehasalsobeenendorsedbythe Addl.CIT,Range-1,Ahmedabad.Thenecessarycorrespondencepertainingtotheissueisannexed herewiththisletterfornecessaryreference. Submitted. 3.Inviewoftheabove,itisevidentthattheAuditObjectionraisedbythe revenuewasnotacceptedbytheAO.Therefore,weareoftheviewthatthecase oftheassesseedoesnotfallundertheexceptionasallegedbytherevenue accordingly.Accordingly,weholdthatthereisnomistakeapparentfromthe recordintheorderoftheITATwithinthemeaningofprovisionsofsection254(2) oftheAct.Hence,theM.Afiledbytherevenueisdismissed. M.ANo.89-90/Ahd/2020 in ITANo.376-377/Ahd/2019 A.Y.2003-04 3 3.1Intheresult,theMiscellaneousApplicationfiledbytherevenueis dismissed. NowcomingtotheMANo.90/Ahd/2020inITANo. 377/Ahd/2019forAY2003-04. 4.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissueraisedbytheRevenueinits MiscellaneousApplicationfortheAY2003-04isidenticaltotheissueraisedbythe RevenueinM.AbearingnoNo.90/AHD/2020fortheassessmentyear2003-04 relatingtothepenaltyundersection271(1)(c)oftheAct.Therefore,thefindings giveninMANo.89/AHD/2020shallalsobeapplicabletotheMANo.90/Ahd/2020 forA.Y2003-04.TheMAoftheRevenuebearingNo.89/Ahd/2020forA.Y.2003- 04hasbeendecidedbyusvideparagraphNo.2to3ofthisorderagainstthe Revenue.ThelearnedDRandtheARalsoagreedthatwhateverwillbethe findingsfortheassessmentinMANo.89/Ahd/2020forassessmentyear2003-04 shallalsobeappliedtotheMANo.90/Ahd/2020forA.Y2003-04.Hence,the groundofappealfiledbytheRevenueisdismissed. 4.1Intheresult,theMiscellaneousApplicationfiledbytheRevenueis dismissed. 5.Intheresult,boththeMiscellaneousApplicationfiledbytheRevenueare dismissed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton02/08/2023atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (MADHUMITAROY)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated02/08/2023 Manish