9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in deleting the addition of Rs.3,55,025/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of depreciation. 2. During hearing, at the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee pointed that the tax effect in the appeal of the Revenue is below prescribed monetary limit. It was also contended that the impugned issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Omprakash Chourasia (ITA No. 388/Ind/2012, order dated 17.7.2013). This contention of the assessee was not controverted by the Revenue. 3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above assertion, we are reproducing hereunder the aforesaid order of the Tribunal :- "3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. A query was specifically made by the Bench regarding tax effect, the Revenue could not controvert the fact that the tax effect is below prescribed limit of Rs. 3 lacs. We find that the total income computed by the Assessing Officer is only Rs.4,27,430/- as has been mentioned in the assessment order itself. Since the differential tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit, therefore, this appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 8,85,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained loan credit u/s 68 of the Act whereas the assessee has filed the cross objection on the ground that learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in respect of the addition of Rs. 1 lac made u/s 68 of the Act without considering the facts of the case and submissions made before him. 2. During hearing of this appeal, the Ld. Counsel for assessee contended that the tax effect in the present appeal is below the prescribed limit, therefore, the appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed on this count itself by further submitting that the tax effect is Rs. 2,52,450/-, therefore, no appeal can be filed before the tribunal which is having the tax effect less than Rs. 3 lacs. This factual matrix was fairly consented by the learned Sr. DR but submitted that the circular of CBDT is effective from a particular date, therefore, the submission of the assessee is not tenable. In reply, the Ld. Counsel for assessee contended that identically the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held that it is applicable to the appeals which are pending before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sr. DR Shri P.K. Mitra fairly admitted that the tax effect is below prescribed monetary limit. 3. We have considered the rival submissions of ld. representatives of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present appeal, the income assessed is Rs.1,37,880/- and the tax involved is Rs.40,611/- only, therefore, without going into merits of the case on the primary objection of monetary limit, the appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed. Our view is supported by the decision of the Tribunal in Himanshu Flour Mills (ITA No.506/Ind/2009, order dated 26.5.2010). The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereunder: "This appeal is by the revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 26.8.2009 on the ground that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,46,831/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets and also in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of brought forward losses of earlier years. 2. During hearing of this appeal, we have heard the learned counsels from both the sides and considered the arguments advanced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egularly allowed since the date of inclusion in the balance sheet. Even in the impugned order there is a factual finding that the assessee from the date of inclusion has not shown in addition to the block of assets as the WDV as on 31.3.2002 was taken as basis after reducing the sale of some assets for the calculation of allowable depreciation for the assessment year 2003-04 and the assessee was allowed depreciation for the assessment year 2002-03. The revenue has not adduced any evidence controverting the factual finding mentioned in the impugned order, therefore, the disallowance is desirable in the impugned appeal. Even otherwise on the tax effect this appeal of the revenue is liable to be dismissed. This view finds support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of R.K. Hotels (ITA No.383/Ind/09). The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder :- "This appeal is by the revenue against the order of ld. CIT-(A)-II, Bhopal, dated 31.3.2009 for the AY 2005-06 on the ground that the ld. first appellate authority erred in deleting the addition of 6,37,206/- made by the AO by applying the provisions of sec. 154(3) on account of incorrectness and incompleteness of bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conseqently, this ground of the revenue is dismissed. 4. The next ground raised is that the learned first appellate authority erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of brought forward losses of earlier years without any basis. The contention raised on behalf of the revenue is that in coming to a particular conclusion, no basis has been adduced by the learned first appellate authority and it was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the absence of proof furnished by the assessee. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The stand of the revenue is that proof of last years' losses was not furnished by the assessee consequently these are not allowable whereas before the learned first appellate authority there is a factual finding that in all previous years' returns were duly filed by the assessee and the same were available on record of the Assessing Officer. In the impugned order the learned first appellate authority has directed the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of brought forward losses of earlier years which were not set off after verification of records of earlier years. Even otherwis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T. Act, 1961. As far as the merit of the case is concerned, it has already been examined by the ld. CIT(A) by keeping the provisions of sec. 275(1)(a) of the Act. Since the appeal of the assessee was decided by the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 4.11.2004, consequently, the penalty proceedings were supposed to be disposed of by 31.3.2006 whereas the same was decided vide order dated 22.4.2009. In view of this fact, the order was rightly quashed, consequently, we find no infirmity in the stand of the ld. CIT(A). The same is upheld. Order pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. representatives of both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 31.5.2011." Identically the Bench in the case of Vinod Bansal, ITA No. 275/Ind/2010 vide order dated 22.6.2011 dismissed the appeal of the revenue on the issue of tax effect. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Ashok Kumar Manibhai Company (2009) 317 ITR 386 held as under :- "This Court can very well take judicial notice of the fact that by passage of time money value has gone down, the cost of litigation expenses has gone up, the assessee on the file of the Department have been increased consequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
