9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1609 - AT - Income TaxMaintainability of appeal - low tax effect - tax effect on account of the said alleged audit objection - Reopening of assessment on audit objection disallowing of total income as admitted before adjustment of loss as well as disallowance of depreciation claim on MS Rolls - HELD THAT - Revenue has filed the present petition to recall the order of the Tribunal 2016 (7) TMI 1590 - ITAT CHENNAI and adjudicate the issue on merits on the ground that there was audit objection and such audit objection was accepted by the Department, but, the Revenue has not filed any documentary evidence along with the petition or during the course of hearing of the petition. On perusal of the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Chennai under Rule 15 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, it appears that the appeal was filed by the Revenue in the regular course and not on the basis of audit objection. Therefore, it is obvious that para 8 of Circular No.21 of 2015 issued by CBDT is not applicable. We find that against dismissal of the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Revenue in the case of DCIT v. Paragon Steels Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (3) TMI 1825 - ITAT CHENNAI the Revenue preferred further appeal before the Hon ble Madras High Court 2017 (12) TMI 1604 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . While dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue held 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. MP filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Issues:
1. Recall of Tribunal order based on tax effect and audit objection. 2. Documentary evidence requirement for recalling Tribunal order. 3. Reopening of assessment under section 147 based on notice under section 148. 4. Disallowance of total income and depreciation claim on MS Rolls. 5. Monetary limit for filing appeal by Revenue before Tribunal. 6. Applicability of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. 7. Dismissal of Miscellaneous Petition by Tribunal and High Court. Issue 1: The Revenue sought to recall the Tribunal's order due to the dismissal of an appeal based on less tax effect. The Revenue argued that the issue arose from an audit objection accepted by the Department, emphasizing the need to decide the matter on merits. The assessee contended that no documentary evidence was presented to prove the audit objection's acceptance. The Tribunal noted that the reassessment was not initiated based on an audit objection. Issue 2: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Revenue as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of ?10,00,000. The Revenue filed a petition to recall the order, claiming an audit objection was accepted, but failed to provide documentary evidence. The Tribunal found that the appeal was not based on an audit objection as per the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, making the Circular No. 21/2015 inapplicable. Issue 3: The assessment for the year 2003-04 was reopened under section 147 after a notice under section 148 was issued and served to the assessee. The assessee responded by considering the original return as a response to the notice and sought reasons for the reassessment. The assessment under section 143(3) r.w. section 147 was completed after considering the submissions and verifying records, leading to disallowance of total income and depreciation claim on MS Rolls. Issue 4: The Tribunal noted that the assessment order did not mention initiation based on an audit objection. The tax effect in the original appeal was below the CBDT prescribed limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal, resulting in the appeal being dismissed as un-admitted. Issue 5: The Revenue's petition to recall the Tribunal's order was based on the claim of an audit objection being accepted, but no documentary evidence was provided. The Tribunal found that the appeal was not filed due to an audit objection, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's petition. Issue 6: In a similar case, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed by the High Court as the Tribunal found the appeal was not based on audit objections. Following this decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's miscellaneous petition in the present case. Issue 7: Considering the facts and the High Court's decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's miscellaneous petition. The Tribunal upheld the dismissal based on the factual findings and the absence of a substantial question of law for consideration. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's petition to recall the order, emphasizing the lack of evidence for the audit objection claim and the inapplicability of the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. The decision aligned with the High Court's ruling in a similar case, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's miscellaneous petition.
|
