Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Sri Sudhir Reddy Basani,, Hyderabad vs Department Of Income Tax

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 May 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Revenue's appeal is not maintainable where the tax disputed in the case is below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing an appeal before the Tribunal by the department, and where that fact is uncontroverted; such an appeal is dismissed in limine. A cross objection filed by the assessee after an unexplained delay is liable to be dismissed where the assessee fails to establish reasonable cause for the late filing, and the condonation application does not displace that conclusion.

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

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALHYDERABAD BENCH 'B', HYDERABADBEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT ANDSHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERITA No.755/Hyd/2014 : Assessment year 2008-09

Income Tax Officer Ward 10(1), V/s. Shri Sudhir Reddy Basani, Hyderabad Secunderabad

(PAN - ACXPB 4181Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Cross objection No.9/Hyd/2015 (in ITA No.755/Hyd/2014) : Assessment year 2008-09

Shri Sudhir Reddy Basani, V/s. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(1), Secunderabad Hyderabad

(PAN - ACXPB 4181Q)

(Cross Objector) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri S.Rama Rao Department by : Shri Rajat Mitra DR

Date of Hearing 30.4.2015 Date of Pronouncement 01.05.2015

ORDER

Per G.C.Gupta, Vice President:

This appeal by the Revenue and Cross objection by the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals).

2 ITA No.755/Hyd/2014 & CO therein Shri Sudhir Reddy Basani, Secunderabad

ITA No.755/Hyd/2014(Revenue's Appeal):

2. Grounds of appeal of the Revenue are as under-

"1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts of the case.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in reducing the margin of estimated profit, as the assessee has produced the books of accounts during the remand proceedings, but the bills and vouchers produced for the expenses claimed in Profit & Loss Account are incomplete and do not have any supporting evidences thereof. Keeping in view of nature of business, the A.O. has estimated the gross profit at 8% which is reasonable and is on par with section 44AF of I.T. Act, 1961.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the sundry creditors whose confirmation was not submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer either during the scrutiny proceedings or remand proceedings."

3. The learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the present appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable as the disputed tax in this case was less than Rs.3 lakhs, the monetary limit fixed by the CBDT for filing an appeal before the Tribunal.

4. The Learned Departmental Representative has relied on the order of the Assessing Officer.

5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). In view of the uncontroverted submission of the assessee that the disputed tax in this case was less than Rs.3 lakhs, which is the monetary limit for filing an appeal before the Tribunal by the department, we hold that the present appeal preferred by the revenue is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

3 ITA No.755/Hyd/2014 & CO therein Shri Sudhir Reddy Basani, Secunderabad

Cross objection No.9/Hyd/2014

6. Grounds of the Cross Objection of the assessee are as under;-

"1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance to an extent of Rs.47,249/- from out of interest claimed on the housing loan.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in holding that the books of account are to be rejected and further erred in estimating the net income at 6% of the turnover.

3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition on account of sundry creditors to an extent of Rs.3,35,851/-."

7. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 179 days in preferring the Cross Objection by the assessee and a condonation application has been filed separately.

8. We have considered the rival submissions on the issue of condonation of delay. We find that no reasonable cause for late filing the Cross objection could be established by the assessee. Accordingly, the Cross objection preferred by the assessee is dismissed.

9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the court on 1st May, 2015

Sd/- Sd/- (P.M.Jagtap) (G.C.Gupta) Accountant Member Vice President

Dt/- 1st May, 2015 4 ITA No.755/Hyd/2014 & CO therein Shri Sudhir Reddy Basani, Secunderabad

Copy forwarded to:

1. Shri Sudhir Reddy Basani, Prop. Sujai Ribbons India, F.No.639, 6th Floor, Chandralok Complex, Secunderabad

2. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(1), Hyderabad

3. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) 18, Mumbai

4. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) VI, Hyderabad

5. Commissioner of Income-tax IV, Hyderabad

6. Departmental Representative, ITAT, Hyderabad. B.V.S

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