Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Per contra, the ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that no documentary evidence has been placed before the Tribunal either at the time of hearing of the appeal or along with the present miscellaneous petition to say that there was audit objection and such audit objection was accepted by the Department and prayed that the petition filed by the Department is liable to be dismissed. He relied on the decision in the case of PCIT v. Paragon Steels Pvt. Ltd. in T.C.A. No. 579 of 2017 dated 07.12.2017.

6. Further, we find that against dismissal of the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Revenue in the case of DCIT v. Paragon Steels Pvt. Ltd. in M.P. No. 214/Mds/2016 [in I.T.A. No. 887/Mds/2015] dated 03.03.2017, the Revenue preferred further appeal before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in T.C.A. No. 579 of 2017. While dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held as under:

"3. The said miscellaneous petition was filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal on the ground that Circular No. 21/2015 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes is not applicable to the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal verified the original files and on perusal of the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Rule 15 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, the Tribunal found that the appeal was filed in the regular course and not on the basis of the audit objections. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that paragraph 8 of Circular No. 21/2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is not applicable and accordingly, the said miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue was rejected. The Tribunal, after having considered the factual position and verified the original files, has taken a decision in the matter and we find no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, as the entire finding is factual.