9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the rival submissions and perused the material available on file. In view of the above, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated 29.6.2011: " Aggrieved by the order dated 3rd March, 2010 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the revenue is in appeal on the ground that learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,85,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 8,85,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained loan credit u/s 68 of the Act whereas the assessee has filed the cross objection on the ground that learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in respect of the addition of Rs. 1 lac made u/s 68 of the Act without considering the facts of the case and submissions made before him. 2. During hearing of this appeal, the Ld. Counsel for assessee contended that the tax effect in the present appeal is below the prescribed limit, therefore, the appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed on this count itself by further submitting that the tax effect is Rs. 2,52,450/-, therefore, no appeal can be filed bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice u/s 148 for the A.Y. 2002-03, in view of the provisions of section 149(1)(a) read with section 151(1) of the IT Act, 1961? 2. During hearing of this appeal, we have heard Shri S.S. Deshpande, ld. Counsel for the assessee and Shri P.K. Mitra, learned Senior DR. The crux of argument is that the tax effect in the present appeal is below monetary prescribed limit, therefore, straight way the appeal of the revenue may be dismissed. The ld. Sr. DR Shri P.K. Mitra fairly admitted 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 the present appeal, the income assessed is Rs.1,37,880/- and the tax involved is Rs.40,611/- only, therefore, without going into merits of the case on the primary objection of monetary limit, the appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed. Our view is supported by the decision of the Tribunal in Himanshu Flour Mills (ITA No.506/Ind/2009, order dated 26.5.2010). The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereunder: " This appeal is by the revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 26.8.2009 on the ground t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comments of the auditors in the notes to accounts and the nature of the business, disallowed 50% of the depreciation claimed by the assessee which was worked out at Rs.4,26,936/-. Before the learned first appellate authority the submission of the assessee was that the fixed assets were duly reflected in the balance sheet during the relevant period and there was no new addition in the assets. The depreciation on all the assets was regularly allowed since the date of inclusion in the balance sheet. Even in the impugned order there is a factual finding that the assessee from the date of inclusion has not shown in addition to the block of assets as the WDV as on 31.3.2002 was taken as basis after reducing the sale of some assets for the calculation of allowable depreciation for the assessment year 2003-04 and the assessee was allowed depreciation for the assessment year 2002-03. The revenue has not adduced any evidence controverting the factual finding mentioned in the impugned order, therefore, the disallowance is desirable in the impugned appeal. Even otherwise on the tax effect this appeal of the revenue is liable to be dismissed. This view finds support from the decision of the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing into the merits of the case, facts and the judicial pronouncements (supra), this appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. Representatives of both sides on 6.10.2009." In the light of the above, this ground of the revenue is having no merit, therefore, the stand of the learned CIT(A) is affirmed conseqently, this ground of the revenue is dismissed. 4. The next ground raised is that the learned first appellate authority erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of brought forward losses of earlier years without any basis. The contention raised on behalf of the revenue is that in coming to a particular conclusion, no basis has been adduced by the learned first appellate authority and it was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the absence of proof furnished by the assessee. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The stand of the revenue is that proof of last years' losses was not furnished by the assessee consequently these are not allowable whereas before the learned first appellate authority there is a factual finding that in all previous yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .No. Authority Monetary limit (In Rs.) 1 ITAT 3,00,000/- 2 Appeal under section 260A before High Court 10,00,000/- 3 Supreme Court 25,00,000/- The above instructions are applicable to the appeals filed on or after 9.2.2011, issued u/s 268A(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As far as the merit of the case is concerned, it has already been examined by the ld. CIT(A) by keeping the provisions of sec. 275(1)(a) of the Act. Since the appeal of the assessee was decided by the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 4.11.2004, 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. Order pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. representatives of both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 31.5.2011." Identically the Bench in the case of Vinod Bansal, ITA No. 275/Ind/2010 vide order dated 22.6.2011 dismissed the appeal of the revenue on the issue of tax effect. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Ashok Kumar Manibhai & Company (2009) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
