Bharat Kantilal Patel, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationITA No. 1762/Ahd/2011
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Revenue's appeal is not maintainable where the tax effect involved, computed on the relief granted by the first appellate authority, is below the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals by the CBDT instruction issued under section 268A of the Income Tax Act, and that instruction, as revised, applies to the appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ी मक ु ु ल कुमार ावत, या यक सद य एवं ी एन.एस. सैनी, लेखा सद य के सम% BEFORE SHRI MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1762/Ahd/2011 [Asstt. Year: 2008-09]
DCIT, Cir.14 Shri Bharat Kantilal Patel Ahmedabad. Vs 12, Surajpark Society Nr. Karnavati Society CTM, Amraiwadi Ahmedabad 380 050.
PAN : ABVPP 9908 K
अपीलाथ'/ (Appellant) )*यथ'/ (Respondent)
Revenue by : Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr.DR Assessee(s) by : Shri S.N. Divetia, AR
सन ु वाई क तार ख/ Dateof Hearing : 05/02/2015 घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Pronouncement: 13/02/2015
आदे श/O R D E R
PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by
the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-XXI, Ahmedabad dated 18.4.2011 for the Asstt.Year 2008-09.
2. Sole ground of appeal taken by the Revenue in its appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of undisclosed NSE investment in shares and transactions of Rs.3,17,517/-, unexplained cash deposit of Rs.5,40,000/- and undisclosed investment in shares in BSE of Rs.3,70,156/-.
3. At the outset, the AR of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has granted relief of Rs.12,27,673/- to the assessee, and that tax effect on the relief granted by the CIT(A) to the assessee was below Rs.4 ITA No.1762/Ahd/2011 2
lakhs, and therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue on 4.7.2011 is not maintainable in view of provision of section 268A of the IT Act and CBDT instruction no.3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 which has been revised on 10.7.2014 by instruction no.5/2014 to Rs.4 lakhs.
4. The DR could not controvert the above submission of the AR.
5. In view of the above uncontroverted submission of the AR and the CBDT instruction, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that tax effect involved in this appeal is below Rs.4 lakhs, and therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable.
6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Court on Friday, the 13th February, 2015 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/- Sd/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ( N.S. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
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