9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate Authorities. Therefore, this appeal on 4.1.2016 by the appellant. 3. The issue involved in the appeal is revolving around the relief granted to the assessee in respect of valuation of closing stock of low grade iron ore. 4. The points for determination so raised by the appellant as under:- A. Whether the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of CIT (A) by simplicitor reliance on an order passed by the coordinate bench in ITA No.29/PNJ/2008 for assessment year 2004-05, without discussing and considering the facts interse an applicability thereof between the assessee's case in the present proceedings in proper perspective? B. Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable in as much as the order does not disclose application of mind assigning any reasons what so ever while dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue save and except observations at para 10 which are cryptic? C. Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in upholding the deletion on account of under valuation of closing stock in the light of omission/failure on the part of assessee in filing a revised return u/s 139(5) during the pendency of reassessment proceedings initiated purs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id Circular. It was also clarified therein that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed in the said Circular. 2. In para 8 of the aforesaid Circular No.21/2015, it has been unambiguously and expressly provided that adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in Circular or even if there is no tax effect: a. Where the Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule are under challenge, or. b. Where Board's order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or. c. Where Revenue Audit Objection in the case has been accepted by the Department. d. Where the addition relates to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts. The direction to contest on merits' negates the mechanical filing of appeals in these cases. 3. However, it has been noticed that para 8 (c) of Circular No.21/2015, regarding cases where addition made on account of Revenue Audit Objection is deleted, is being erroneously interpreted and appeals are being mechanically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is always subject to the hearing of appeal of questions of law and/or points of law so raised. The Appellate Court required to be considered those questions/respective appeals in accordance with law inspite of endorsements and/or decision so taken by the department to challenge the orders passed by the lower Appellate Court/Assessment Officer. Merely because there are endorsements made to challenge the appeal on merits that itself cannot be the reason for the higher Appellate Court or Appellate Bench or Court under Section 260 A or such other Sections to accept the question of law without hearing the parties. The procedure so contemplated of hearing of such appeals by the higher Appellate Forum required to be followed. In the present case, therefore, we are not inclined to accept the preliminary objection so raised by the counsel for the assessee. However, we are inclined to proceed with the hearing of the matter on its own merits based upon the points so raised in the background of the litigation so recorded. 9. It is clarified here that there is no issue with regard to the monetary limits where tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given. The relevant paragraph of Circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without it, is unacceptable situation: [2016] 388 ITR 482 (SC) Jai Hind Cyhcle Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. It is, therefore, required to frame the proper and correct question of law before giving any opinion by the High Court while deciding such appeal on merits : [2016] 383 ITR 195 (SC) Liberty Footwear Co.Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. 13. The perversity of facts in a given case may also be treated as, on facts and circumstances, a substantial question of law: Sudarshan Silks & Sarees Vs. CIT 300 ITR 205. There are various situations and questions, which may arise where the High Court need to frame the question of law based upon the record as the concept "substantial question of law" has not been defined specifically. Therefore, in a given case the principle of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be kept in mind while dealing with Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act. 14. We have to consider in the present case, therefore, whether the question, so raised, in the appeal falls within the ambit of substantial question of law, keeping in mind the concurrent findings of fact against the department given by two Appellate Authorities and whether any substa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount of opening stock of low grade iron ore also while bringing to tax the entire stock available, which might have been produced over a period of many years, in the closing stock of this year which certainly distort the profits of this year. Since we are not in agreement with the addition of closing stock of unrealisable low grade iron ore, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition so made by the A.O. Acccodingly the grounds raised in the cross objection are considered allowed A.O. is directed to delete the addition." "8 Departmaental Represetnative simply relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. He could not point out any specific error in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 10. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and persued the material available on record. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by following the order of this Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in assessment year 2004-05 in I.T.A.No.29/PNJ/2008 dated 07/08/2009. Therefeore, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which is confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
