2019 (5) TMI 885 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - monetary limit - maintainability of appeal - Addition u/s 69B - additions of different amounts at the hands of the assessee u/s on protective basis - additions were made on the basis of material found during the search and seizure operation conducted in Ms. Chandbibi Zaidi, wherein, bank account in the name of the assessee and Ms. Chandbibi Zidi indicating deposit - HELD THAT - The facts involved in all the appeals being identical, the Tribunal while disposing off the present appeals not only took note of the factual aspect of the issue but also found that the order passed by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2007-08 squarely applies to the facts of the present appeal. Tribunal upheld Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. That being the case, the contention of the Department that the appeal order passed by the Tribunal suffers from mistake apparent on the face of record, as envisaged under section 254(2) is without any basis. On the contrary, it is very much clear from the present misc. applications that the Department in the guise of rectification is actually seeking a review of the order which is not permissible in law. AR had submitted that the tax effect on the disputed additions is less than the monetary limit of ₹ 20 lakh as per CBDT Circular no.3/ 2018, dated 11th July 2018. Therefore, the present appeals of the Revenue would otherwise not be maintainable. We find substantial force in the aforesaid submissions of the learned AR. Since the tax effect on the disputed additions is much below the monetary limit of ₹ 20 lakh, the present appeals would be covered by the CBDT Circular referred to above, hence, would not maintainable. Therefore, it would have been a fruitless exercise to recall the appeal order. In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss the applications filed by the Revenue - Misc. applications are dismissed.

Issues:
1. Recall of the order dated 4th December 2015 under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Mistake apparent in the face of record in the appeal order passed by the Tribunal.
3. Clubbing of appeals for all years including assessment year 2007-08.
4. Addition made under section 69B of the Act for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08.
5. Disputed additions and decisions by the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal.
6. Tax effect on disputed additions below the monetary limit of ?20 lakh as per CBDT Circular.

1. Recall of the Order:
The Revenue filed applications seeking the recall of the order dated 4th December 2015 under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Department contended that the Tribunal erred in not referring to the correct remand report and granting relief to the assessee based on another assessee's case. The Department also argued against the non-clubbing of appeals for all years, hindering legal recourse due to low tax effect. The Authorised Representative defended the Tribunal's decision, stating that all aspects were considered before passing the order.

2. Mistake Apparent in the Order:
The Tribunal analyzed the additions made under section 69B of the Act for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08. The additions were based on material found during a search operation, leading to protective basis additions at the assessee's hands. The Commissioner (Appeals) later deleted these additions, leading to appeals by the Department. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision for the assessment year 2007-08, stating that the facts were identical, and the decision applied to the present appeal. The Tribunal found no mistake apparent in the order and dismissed the Revenue's applications.

3. Clubbing of Appeals:
The Tribunal noted that the Department's contention of a mistake apparent on the face of the record was without basis. The Department's attempt to seek a review through rectification was deemed impermissible in law. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the facts of the case, emphasizing that the appeals were identical.

4. Disputed Additions and Decisions:
The Tribunal highlighted that the tax effect on the disputed additions was below the monetary limit of ?20 lakh as per CBDT Circular no.3/2018. Therefore, the appeals by the Revenue were not maintainable under the circular. The Authorised Representative's submission regarding the tax effect was acknowledged, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's applications as recalling the appeal order would have been futile.

5. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both miscellaneous applications, emphasizing the non-maintainability of the appeals due to the tax effect falling below the prescribed limit. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and legal provisions, ensuring adherence to the CBDT Circular and established legal principles.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues raised, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision.

← Previous Next →