w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (2) v/s M/s Aaryan Mines & Minerals

    I.T.A. No. 430 Rjt of 2015, Cross Objection No. 69/Rjt of 2015

    Decided On, 02 August 2018

    At, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rajkot

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
    By, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. MAHAVIR PRASAD
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Arvind N. Sontakke, Sr. D.R. For the Respondent: Suresh R. Shah, A.R.



Judgment Text

Pradip Kumar Kedia, AM:

1. The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Rajkot ('CIT(A)' in short), dated 30.06.2015 arising in the assessment order dated 26.03.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (the Act) concerning assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has also filed cross-objection in the Revenue's appeal supporting the action of the CIT(A).

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as under:-

"1. The learned CIT(A)-Rajkot has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting addition u/s 40(a)(ia) to the tune of Rs.61,00,920/-.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in entertaining the pleas of the assessee that the same represents purchases and not transportation expenses, although this is against the audit report and books of accounts, which clearly shows the same as 'Transportation expenses'."

3. At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the Ld.AR for the assessee that the appeal filed by the Revenue is hit by recently issued CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11/07/2018 revising the previous thresholds pertaining to tax effects. As per aforesaid Circular, all pending appeals filed by Revenue are liable to be dismissed as a measure for reducing litigation where the tax effect does not exceed the prescribed monetary limit which is now revised at Rs.20 Lakhs. In the instant case, the tax effect on the disputed issues raised by the Revenue is stated to be not exceeding Rs.20 lakhs and therefore appeal of the Revenue is required to be dismissed in limine.

4. The Learned DR for the Revenue fairly admitted the applicability of the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it will be open to the Revenue to seek restoration of its appeal on showing inapplicability of the aforesaid CBDT Circular in any manner.

5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

6. The assessee has filed Cross Objection in the Revenue's appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the AO to reopen the assessment under s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. However, the Ld.AR for the assessee at the time of hearing made a statement at the bar that the cross objec

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

tion raised on behalf of the assessee is not pressed. The Cross Objection is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 7. In the combined result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas assessee's Cross Objection is dismissed as not pressed.
O R