9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions are deleted by the CIT(A) on merit, then for the purpose of challenging the order of CIT(A) in further appeal the case would be required to be examined on merit. Simply the appeal would not be filed because the case falls within the exceptional clause of the CBDT Instruction for not filing the appeal where the tax effect by virtue of relief granted by the CIT(A) is less than the monetary limit for filing such appeals. In other words, the Department has to assess the merits of the dispute involved and they will not file further appeal against the order of the CIT(A) or ITAT in a mechanical manner. See ASHOKKUMAR HARIKISHANBHAI BHAVSAR [ 2020 (1) TMI 1401 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] Department has not brought any substantial material on the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... three applications are also from that very bunch. In these applications, the Revenue has pleaded that the assessment was reopened on the basis of the audit objection, and it has been provided in the circular that if the assessment has been reopened on the basis of audit objection, then that appeal against the order of the ld.CIT(A) would be decided on merit instead of dismissing it on tax effect. 3. We have heard the ld.DR. We find that in the past also number of applications have been filed by the Revenue on identical issue. In one of the cases viz. viz. ITO Vs. Ashokumar Harikishanbahi Bhavsar in ITA No.32/Ahd/2019, we have considered identical issue. The discussion made by the Tribunal in that order read as under: 4. It has been f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Audit Objection is deleted, is being erroneously interpreted and appeals are being mechanically filed by the Department without proper examination of the case on merits. This is contrary to the instructions contained in Circular No.21/2015 and Circular No.8/2016. It is therefore, clarified that the import and intent of para 8 of the Circular No.21/2015 is that even on issues mentioned in the said para, appeals against the adverse judgment should only be filed on merits. 5.1. We have also confronted with the Ld. DR with the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Nawany Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. reported in 98 taxmann.com 294 (Bombay). 5.2. The Hon ble Bombay High Court has considered this Circular and observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ointing out that appeal was filed after evaluation of merit on the issues involved. It sought to recall the order of the Tribunal merely on the basis of audit objection, which is not sufficient for recalling the Tribunal order. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal and the miscellaneous application is rejected. 4. We have also perused the present three MAs. and find that Department has not demonstrated the fact that materials were evaluated before challenging the order of the CIT(A) in appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, there is no disparity on the facts between the finding recorded by us in the case of Shri Ashokkumar Harikishanbahi Bhavsar vis- -vis in these three present MAs. Accordingly, we do not find any m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
