Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Ito, Jaipur vs Smt. Neeta Agarwal, Jaipur on 25 July, 2018
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 373/JP/2017
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12
Income Tax Officer, cuke Smt. Neeta Agarwal,
Ward 6(1), Vs. Prop.- Herbs & Herbs, 4-KA-41,
Jaipur. Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA 9050 C
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l@
s Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal (CA).
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing: 24/07/2018
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 25/07/2018
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M.:
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 09/02/2017 of CIT (A), Ajmer for the assessment year 2011-12. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
" i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.
49,71,839/- made on account of disallowance of commission expenses on sale.
ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- made on account of disallowance of Job Work Expenses.
iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition to Rs. 2 ITA No. 373/JP/2017
ITO Vs. Neeta Agarwal 19,495/- instead of Rs. 38,990/- made on account of disallowance out of General and Telephone expenses.
iv) The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing."
2. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has raised an objection of maintainability of the appeal of the Revenue due to the tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lacs as per the CBDT Circle No. 3 of 2018 dated 11th July, 2018. The ld. A/R submitted that in the facts of the present case, tax effect in Revenue's appeal is stated to be Rs. 15,73,222/- on the addition of Rs 50,91,334/- which is below the prescribed limit of Rs 20 lacs.
3. The ld. D/R has fairly submitted that the tax effect involved in the Revenue's appeal is less than 20 lacs which is prescribed threshold limit in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 issued in supersession of its earlier Circular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015.
4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the demand/ tax effect in the Revenue's appeal in question is below Rs. 20.00 lacs. Under the powers vested by section. 268A(1) of the I T Act, CBDT has recently issued Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11 t h July, 2018 (F No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt) instructing the authorities below that departmental appeal should not be filed before ITAT where the demand/tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lacs. The circular is specifically mentioned to be applicable for all pending appeals.
5. Subject to some exceptions, it is further directed by CBDT that all the departmental appeals pending before ITAT where the demand/tax effect is not 3 ITA No. 373/JP/2017 ITO Vs. Neeta Agarwal exceeding than 20 lacs should be either withdrawn or not pressed by the departmental representatives.
6. The present appeal is not covered by any exceptions mentioned in the said CBDT circular. Since the tax demand in dispute in this departmental appeal is below the limit set out by CBDT for the appeal, the appeal of the assessee is not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018. Accordingly the appeal of the Department is dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn.
7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25/07/2018.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Vijay Pal Rao) (Vikram Singh Yadav) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 25th July, 2018 *Ranjan
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Smt. Neeta Agarwal, Jaipur.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k]t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 373/JP/2017) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar