9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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. - ITA No.365/Ind/2010 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2011 - SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Pradeep Kumar Mitra, Sr. DR. For the Respondent : Shri S.S. Deshpande, CA. ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM This appeal is by the revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A)-I, Indore, dated 4.3.2010 on the ground that the ld. CIT(A) erred in over looking the provision of sec. 275(1A) of I.T. Act and deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for ₹ 2,32,780/-. 2. During hearing of this appeal, we have heard Shri Pradeep Kuamr Mitra, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue and Shri S.S. Deshpande, ld. Counsel for the assessee. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal is below prescribed monetary limit, therefore, straight way, the appeal of the revenue may be dismissed. The ld. Sr. DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sides and considered the arguments advanced by them. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised a preliminary objection that since the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit, therefore, the department is not permitted to file this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed on this short ground itself. However, the learned Sr. DR fairly agreed 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 view of the above assertion of the learned respective counsels, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed. Our view finds support from the decision dated 2nd December, 2009 of the Tribunal in the case of Himanshu Floor Mills (ITA No. 507/Ind/2009). The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereunder :- This appeal is by the revenue challenging the order of the CIT(A) dated 26.8.2009. During hearing of this appeal, I have heard Smt. Aparna Karan, learned Senior DR, and no-body was present for the assessee. Registered notice of hearing was sent to the assessee on 11.11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of sec. 154(3) on account of incorrectness and incompleteness of books of account. . 2. During hearing of the appeal, we have heard Smt. Aparna Karan, ld. Sr. DR and Shri H.P. Verma along with Shri Ashish Goyal, Ld. Counsel for assessee. At the outset, it was pointed out that there is typographical error in mentioning the figure of ₹ 6,37,206/- in the ground of appeal as the correct figure is ₹ 3,94,732/-. The assertion of the assessee was consented to be correct by the ld. Sr. DR. Further, it was pointed out that the tax effect is also below monetary limit, therefore, the appeal of the revenue may be dismissed. The ld. Sr. DR fairly agreed to the submission of the assessee to the extent that the tax effect is below prescribed monetary limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. S.No. Authority Monetary limit (In Rs.) 1 ITAT 2,00,000/- 2 Appeal under section 260A before High Court 4,00,000/- 3 Supreme Court 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 otherwise, it is a case of assessed loss which has not been set off. Consequently, we are in agreement that in view of the provisions of section 72 it should be allowed. Consequently, there is no grievance to the revenue since it has been remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer to do the needful after verification of records of earlier years. My view finds support from the ratio laid down in CIT v. J.H. Gotla; 156 ITR 323 (SC); Tara Devi Behl v. CIT; 218 ITR 541 (P H). The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.; 160 ITR 920 even went to the extent that ITO must allow set off even if it is not claimed by the assessee because a duty is cast upon the ITO to apply the relevant provisions of the Indian Incometax Act for the purpose of determining the true figure of assessee s taxable income and the consequential tax liability. Merely because the assessee fails to claim the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
