TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty to proceed against the assessees on other cases of identical issue, if they are above the monetary limit prescribed - Before parting, we would like to mention that the Revenue has not brought to our notice any exempted situation mentioned in Para 8 of Board Instruction No.3 of 2011 dated 9th February, 2011 whereby appeal is to be filed despite the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit – Decided against Revenue. - ITA Nos.626 & 629/Bang/2012 - - - Dated:- 9-5-2014 - Shri George George K. And Shri Jason P. Boaz,JJ. For the Petitioner : Ms. Priscilla Singsit, CIT (DR) For the Respondent : Shri A. Shankar, Advocate ORDER Per George George K. J.M. 1. These eighteen appeals, preferred at the instance of the Revenue, are directed against the orders of the CIT (A)-VI, Bangalore, dated 24.2.2012, 27.2.2012, 27.2.2012, 29.2.2012, 13.3.2012, 14.3.2012 15.3.2012 in the cases of (i) M/s. Divyasree Holdings Pvt. Ltd, (ii) M/s. Divyasree Properties Pvt. Ltd, (iii) M/s. Coretech Realty Pvt. Ltd., (iv) Rukmini Enterprises, (v) M/s. Divya Moorthy Developers; (vi) Hi-tech Realtors Pvt Ltd, (vii) M/s. Metro Property Management Services Private Limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the relevant joint warrant , the earlier Bench, vide its order dated 6.1.2012, struck down the assessment orders dated 31.12.2008 for the AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07 as not maintainable and also dismissed the revenue s appeals. In the light of the Tribunal s order dated 6.1.2012 in its own group of cases, the present assessees have approached the present CIT (A) with their appeals for adjudication. After taking into account the contentions put-forth by the assessees as well as in conformity with the findings of the earlier Bench of this Tribunal in respect of issuance of joint warrant (supra) and the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Kumar, the CIT (A) had allowed the assessees appeals for the following identical reasons: 8. In the present case, the assessments in the group of cases are under the same group (Shymaraju Group) has been annulled by Hon ble ITAT and the legal issue so framed u/s 153A of the I.T. Act has been decided in favour of the assessee s group. The present cases before me i.e., M/s. Divyasree Holdings Pvt Ltd, an entity of M/s. Shyamaraju Group so framed u/s 153C of the I.T Act wherein such companies searched und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emanates out of the main proceedings so assumed u/s 153A of the I T Act. as the main assessments u/s 153A of the I T Act as aforesaid have been cancelled and annulled by the ITAT, the impugned assessments in appeal u/s 153C of the I T Act wholly and solely hinges invariably on the planks u/s 153A of the IT Act which has now been held as not maintainable in the assessee s own group of cases and, accordingly, the impugned assessments under appeal u/s 153C of the I T Act automatically are to be held as not maintainable. Further, I am bound to follow the decisions of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court and Hon ble ITAT, to maintain the judicial discipline as has also been laid down in 28 STC 483 [Karnataka High Court] 158 ITR 148 [Karnataka High Court]. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in P J Kumar v. ACIT and jurisdictional ITAT in the assessee s own case, the cases of M/s Divyasree Holdings Pvt. Ltd are annulled on the legal issue of the warrant being in joint names and not individual names as the impugned assessments hinges on the assessments framed u/s 153A of the I T Act in respect of the assessee s group which have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire to be dismissed. 4.3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the relevant materials on record and also the findings of the CIT (A) on the issue. 4.3.1. At the outset, we would like to point out an appeal may be preferred by the Revenue on the merits before the Appellate Tribunal provided the tax effect is exceeded the monetary limit of Rs.3,00,000/-. In this connection, we would like to refer to the CBDT s Instruction No.3 of 2011, dated 9th February, 2011, wherein it has been clarified that 2. In supersession of the above instruction, it has been decided by the Board that Departmental appeals may be filed on the merits before Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court, keeping in view the monetary limits and conditions specified below. 3. Henceforth appeals shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder: Sl. No Appeals in income-tax matters Monetary limit (in Rs.) 1. Appeals before Appellate Tribunal 3,00,000 2 Appeal u/s 260A before High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
