Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Rajkot
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Mansukhlal Karsandas Patel(Huf), ... on 10 November, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
[CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD]
BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 99/Rjt/2011
िनधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2005-06
ACIT, Mansukhlal Karsandas Patel-HUF
Circle-3, Vs C/o. M/s. Virani & Co.,
Jamnagar Grain Market, Jamnagar
PAN : AAGHM 0643 D
अपीलाथ /
अपीलाथ (Appellant) यथ
यथ /
थ (Respondent)
Revenue by : Shri Avinash Kumar, Sr DR
Assessee by : Shri M.J. Ranpura, AR
सुनवाई क तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 09/11/2016
घोषणा क तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 10/11/2016
आदेश/O R D E R
PER R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Jamnagar dated 20.01.2011 for Assessment Year 2005-06.
2. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:-
1. The CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in holding the action of the assessing officer in reopening the assessment proceedings under the provisions of section 147 of the Act as invalid.
2. The CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in deleting the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made on account of disallowance claim of deduction u/s 54EC of the Act.
3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that under the provisions of section 54EC of the Act, six months period is to be reckoned from the date of transfer of such assets and no from the date of actual receipt of consideration and as such the assessee was not eligible to claim deduction u/s 54EC of the Act.ITA No. 99/Rjt/2011
ACIT vs. Mansukhlal Karsandas Patel AY : 2005-06 2
4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.
3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal of the Revenue needs to be dismissed on account of low tax effect in view of the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015. The ld. Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the tax effect is less than the limit prescribed by the aforesaid CBDT Circular.
4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that prima-facie this appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 in F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt) dated 10th December 2015, vide which it has been provided that if the tax effect by virtue of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s order is below Rs. 10 lacs, then that order would not be challenged before the Tribunal in further appeal. The Board has provided exemptions at clause (8) of the Instructions wherein it has been provided that these instructions will not be applicable, if vires of any provisions has been quashed by impugned order or addition was made on some audit objections or the addition relates to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts, etc. We find that the present case does not fall within the exemption clause and the tax is less than Rs.10 lacs. Therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable and hence dismissed.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed in limine.
Order pronounced in the Court on 10th November, 2016 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/- Sd/-
(AMARJIT SINGH) (R.P. TOLANI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 10/11/2016
*Biju T., Sr. PS
ITA No. 99/Rjt/2011
ACIT vs. Mansukhlal Karsandas Patel
AY : 2005-06
3
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु (अपील) / The CIT(A)
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण/ DR, ITAT, Rajkot
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, / ITAT, Rajkot