9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... originally filed under Section 139 of the Act may be treated as a return filed pursuant to the notice issued under Section 148. The assessee after obtaining reasons for reopening had objected to the same, which was rejected by the Assessing Officer by an order dated 07.03.2016. Consequently the reassessment was completed vide order dated 30.03.2016. Challenging the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeals)-4, Chennai, [CIT(A)]. By order dated 30.03.2016, the CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal on the ground that reopening was not justified as well as on merits. Questioning such an order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the same was dismissed by the impugned order, on the ground of Low ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) is directed against the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'B' Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.1003/Chny/2018 for the Assessment Year under consideration (AY 2009-10). The appeal is entertained on the following Substantial Questions of Law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in dismissing the departmental appeal on the ground of low tax effect without taking note of the fact that the case is covered by exceptions provided under clause (10)(c) of Circular No.3 of 2018 wherein it has been clearly stated that the cases involving revenue audit objection which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the Revenue's appeal on the ground of low tax effect. For the above reason, the Substantial Question of Law No.1 is answered in favour of the Revenue and consequently the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The natural consequence that will follow, when such orders are passed by the Courts, is to remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 5. We have heard Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Mr.V.S.Jayakumar, learned counsel for respondent/assessee on this aspect. We note that the tax demanded from the respondent assessee is ₹ 2,78,840/-. Considering the low demand, we thought fit to hear the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai, [CIT(A)]. By order dated 30.03.2016, the CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal on the ground that reopening was not justified as well as on merits. Questioning such an order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the same was dismissed by the impugned order, on the ground of Low Tax Effect, which we have held to be not sustainable. 9. Second Substantial Question of Law raised by the Revenue in this appeal has been decided earlier by the Division Bench of this Court and the legal issue is no longer res integra . At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Comstar Automati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
