9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act by the Income tax department before the High Courts. Thus it is crystal clear that on the one hand the tax effect in the instant case is much below the monetary limit as enumerated in Circular No. 3/2018 read with Circular No. 17 of 2019 and on the other hand none of the exception clause much less the audit objection is involved in this case and as such, we are having no hesitation in dismissing this appeal on the question of maintainability itself. Instant appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. - Tax Appeal No. 34 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2023 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant : Mr. Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Sr.S.C. For the Respondent : M/s. Biren Poddar, Sr. Adv., Mahendra Choudhary, Piyush Poddar, and Manav Poddar, Advocates Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the Common Order dated 20.01.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as ITAT ) in the case being I.T.A No. 30/RAN/2017 for the Assessment year 2012-13, whereby the learned ITAT has allowed the appeal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for this year. The Respondent-assessee filed a reply/rejoinder on 05.12.2022 stating therein that the appellant IT department has filed the Supplementary Affidavit in reply stating therein at paragraph 5 that the audit objection of the Revenue Audit Department was sent to the CIT, Ranchi for its approval and same was duly approved, relying upon the letter dated 12.09.2017 (Annexure-3) written by the Assessing Officer, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Ranchi to the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, but a perusal of the said letter shows that the same was not issued by CIT, Ranchi justifying the approval. The Respondent further stated that in the aforesaid audit objection, notice u/s 148 was issued on 11.08.2017 for disputed issue - in respect of Excess allowance of business loss of Rs. 59,41,801/- (Anenxure-3). Whereas in the instant Tax Appeal the disputed issue is in respect of different issue of Rs. 1,07,35,959/- in respect of disallowance of expenses under the head Retention Money Deposit and Security Deposit . As such in the instant tax appeal there is no relevance of the aforesaid Audit Objection and the instant Tax Appeal is not hit by the aforesaid audit obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not hit by Tax Effect. 5. Mr. Biren Poddar, learned senior counsel for the respondent- assessee vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the revenueand submits that audit objection was not accepted by the revenue even in the Assessment year 2010-11 and though the CIT had initiated the proceeding under Section 263, but it never referred to the audit objection and passed the order on other grounds. Moreover, in the aforesaid audit objection, notice u/s 148 was issued on 11.08.2017 for disputed issue in respect of Excess allowance of business loss of Rs. 59,41,801/- (Anenxure-3). Whereas in the instant Tax Appeal the disputed issue is in respect of Rs. 1,07,35,959/- in respect of disallowance of expenses under the head Retention Money Deposit and Security Deposit . As such in the instant tax appeal there is no relevance of the aforesaid Audit Objection and the instant Tax Appeal is not hit by the aforesaid audit objection as stated by the appellant IT department in its Supplementary Affidavit. As such, it will be incorrect to say that audit objection was accepted. Learned senior counsel for the assessee further contended that the instant appeal may be dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) of the instruction No. 09 of 2006 and instruction No. 16 of 2013 of the CBDT, New Delhi, necessary direction from the Commissioner of the Income Tax was sought. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi directed the A.O to send the proposal for revision ofassessment u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per direction of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi proposal for revision of assessment u/s 263 has been submitted. From bare perusal of the aforesaid paragraph it is clear that the Audit Objection was not accepted by the department. However, Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi directed the AO to send the proposal of Revision u/s 263 of the Act and accordingly such proposal was submitted by the AO i.e. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi for the reason that tax effect in the said case was more than Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is not a case that the Revenue Audit Objection was accepted by the department on the issue of allowance of expenditure in respect of Retention Money and Security Deposit and the proposal for revision of the case u/s 263 was sent because of the reason that the tax effect was more than Rs.2,00,000/-. It has been clearly mentioned in the said letter by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to decide on the audit objection the file was sent for approval to the Commissioner of Income Tax. It further transpires that the Commissioner of Income Tax instead of accepting the audit objection proceeded to initiate a proceeding under Section 263 and finally passed an order under the said section as according to him the original assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 9. In the case at hand, the appeal filed by the revenue in the year 2020 against the impugned order dated 20.01.2020, for Assessment Year: 2012-13 appears to be not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine, as the amount of disputed issue in the aforesaid Tax Appeal is 1,07,35,595/- and the amount of tax in dispute on the said disputed issue is Rs.34,83,281/- only (As stated by the appellant in its 3rd supplementary affidavit) which is much below of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and the alleged Audit Objection is in respect of Excess allowance of business loss and not in respect of Retention Money Deposit Security Deposit . Therefore, in view of the aforesaid Circulars (Annexure-A A/1 issued by CBDT) and also in view of the settled propos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
