Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Amit Digvijay Singh, Nashik vs Department Of Income Tax

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal31 March 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal's dismissal rests on the rule that an appeal by the Revenue is not maintainable before the Tribunal where the tax effect of the issues raised is below the monetary threshold fixed by the CBDT in Instruction No. 5 of 2014, which bars filing in such cases where the tax effect is below Rupees four lakhs, and that the Department's failure to contest the factual finding that the tax effect falls below that limit makes the bar applicable.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALPUNE BENCH "A", PUNEBEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBERITA No.1945/PN/2012Assessment Year : 2008-09

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Nashik. .... Appellant

Vs.

Amit Digvijay Singh, Durgesh Residency, Gangapur Road, Nashik PAN : AQZPS2999F .... Respondent

Department by : Shri Sandeep Garg, CIT Assessee by : Shri S. N. Doshi Date of hearing : 16-03-2015 Date of pronouncement : 31-03-2015

ORDER

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM :

The captioned appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Nashik dated 24.07.2012 which, in

turn, has arisen from the order dated 31.12.2009 passed by the Assessing

Officer under section 144 r.w.s. 153B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

"the Act") pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09.

2. In this appeal, the solitary issue raised by the Revenue is with regard to

the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions of (i) Rs.6,00,000/- on

account of estimation of income; and, (ii) Rs.5,06,697/- on account of jewellery

found during the course of search action pertaining to assessment year

2008-09.

3. In brief, the relevant facts are that assessee is an individual engaged in

the business of hiring motor vehicles. Initially, assessee had not filed his

return of income u/s 139 of the Act. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was

conducted on 28.06.2007 in the case of Singh Bhutada group of cases and 2 ITA No.1945/PN/2012

the Assessing Officer further issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 05.10.2009

for filing of return of income. In response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act,

assessee had not filed his return of income. The Assessing Officer assessed

the income on the basis of information collected during the course of search

proceedings and made the additions of (i) Rs.6,00,000/- on account of

estimation of income; and, (ii) Rs.5,06,697/- on account of jewellery. Being

aggrieved with the action of the Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter

before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has not agreed with the stand of the Assessing

Officer and deleted the aforesaid impugned additions. Not being satisfied with

the decision of the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us.

4. At the time of hearing, a preliminarily objection was raised by the Ld.

Representative for the respondent-assessee to the effect that the captioned

appeal is not maintainable in view of Instruction No.5 of 2014 dated

10.07.2014 issued by the CBDT. The plea raised before us is that the tax

effect in respect of the issue raised in the present appeal is below the limit

prescribed by CBDT in its Instruction No.5 of 2014 (supra) for filing of appeals

before the Tribunal.

5. In response, the Ld. Departmental Representative has not contested

the factual matrix that the tax effect involved in present appeal is below the

monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT in its Instruction No.5 of 2014 (supra)

regarding filing of appeals before the Tribunal.

6. In view of the aforesaid factual position, it is evident that the captioned

appeal is not maintainable and is hit by the monetary limits prescribed by the

CBDT vide Instruction No.5 of 2014 (supra) for filing of appeals before the

Tribunal. Notably, as per the CBDT Instruction No.5 of 2014 (supra) appeal

before the Tribunal shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect in respect of

the issues raised is below Rupees four lacs. As a result of the aforesaid 3 ITA No.1945/PN/2012

discussion, in our view, the present appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable

in the light of the CBDT Instruction No.5 of 2014 (supra). Accordingly, the

captioned appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

7. In the result, the captioned appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as

above.

Order pronounced on 31 st March, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Pune, Dated: 31 st March, 2015. Sujeet

Copy of the order is forwarded to: - 1) The Assessee; 2) The Department; 3) The CIT(A)-I, Nashik; 4) The CIT-I, Nashik; 5) The DR "A" Bench, I.T.A.T., Pune; 6) Guard File.

By Order //True Copy//

Assistant Registrar I.T.A.T., Pune

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free