TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so given referring to those Circulars have been kept in mind while passing this order as on merits also we have noted that there is no substantial question of law involved or arose. Therefore, there is no occasion to frame or re-frame any additional question of law for the reason above recorded. We are dismissing the appeal at the admission stage itself. In view of the above, we are inclined to observe that there is no substantial point for determination involved. There is no non-application of mind. The concurrent finding reflects the position on facts in the case in hand. There was no question to file the revised return on facts. - Tax Appeal No. 60/2016 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2017 - ANOOP V. MOHTA NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. Ms. A. Razaq, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri P. Karpe, Advocate for the Respondent. JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J) : 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. The appellant the revenue department has preferred this appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) and the Income Tax Rules,1962 ( the Rules made thereunder) whereby challenge the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ( ITAT ) Panaji Bench, Panaji dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 64/- was reduced from total income returned by assessee due to additions made towards closing stock as assessee was not valuing the lumpy ore low grade iron ore. Said return was processed and the case was thereafter taken up for scrutiny. II. The Assessing Officer (AO) by order dated 18.10.2011 added the value of lumpy ore of ₹ 6,50,05,000/- (including the value of reduction in total income is ₹ 3,20,40,964/- ) to the total income of the assessee. III. Aggrieved by AO's order the Assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Commissioner of Income Tax (A), after hearing the parties by order dated 22.10.2013, allowed the appeal thereby directing AO to delete the addition made on account of under valuation of closing stock. IV. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) (CITA), the appellant filed an appeal Tribunal (ITAT), Tribunal by order dated 05.08.2015, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue upholding the order of CIT (A). 6. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent based upon the clarification of Circulars 21/2015, 8/2016 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmission is made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that this is the case where the appellant on verifying the provisions of law and record and after due deliberation comes to the conclusion to challenge the orders on its merit, as contemplated under Circular 5 of 2017. The endorsements are made accordingly on the respective assessee file and the record. The files are also brought in Court in support of the submission and the statement is made those endorsements can be seen even by the Court. 8. Considering the scheme and purpose of the Income Tax Act, Rules and the Circulars, and the concern measures for reducing litigation so issued from time to time, still we have to consider the fact and circumstances of the case including its merits specially when once the appellant has taken decision to challenge the orders in appeal as done in the present case with a clear endorsement on record to proceed and challenge the orders on merits. We are not inclined to accept the case of assessee counsel that those endorsements need to be verified and/or seen by the Court and/ or by the parties. Keeping in mind the Circulars and the position of law including the elements so refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the fact and circumstances and in view of tax effect limit is more that ₹ 20,00,000/- need no further discussion as sought to be contended by learned counsel appearing for the assessee based upon the Circulars so referred above. If case is made out, we have to consider clause (2) of the Circular (5/2017) dated 23.1.2017, even if monetary limits is more or less as prescribed in the circular. The Apex Court has expressed in [2013] 350 ITR 300 (SC) Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Surya Herbal Ltd. as under:- Delay condoned. Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particulaly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income-tax Act, 1961, in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or a large number of matters. In our view, in such cases if attention of the High Court is drawn, the High Court will not apply the Circular ipso facto. For that purpose, liberty is granted to the Department to move the High Court in two weeks. 11. Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, has been inserted with effect from 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the appellant unable to place any additional evidence/documents in support of their grounds so raised in appeals except the order passed by A.O. We have noted, after going through the reasons given by the Appellate Authorities, that no case is made out by the department to interfere with the concurrent findings so given as the same is not contrary to the record and/or the law. 15. There is no question of law arose for consideration less a substantial question of law so framed in the appeal so recorded above. We see no infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate authorities. 16. In case in hand the cross-appeal, as such, not filed by the assessee but still on record it reflects that he has been taxed twice by the A.O. to the extent of ₹ 32040964/- . The Appellate Authorities on merit reversed the order passed by the A.O. and the second Appellate Authority has maintained the reversal order. The finding, so recorded on facts, therefore, there is no scope for interference by the High Court ( M. Janardhana Rao Vs. JCIT, 273 ITR 50 (SC). 17. The explanation offered by the assessee was not taken note of and not recorded by the A.O. However, the Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon the material available on record and it is well within the framework of law. 20. This is not the case where the question of fact can be treated and convert as question of law for want of additional material and/or material on record. After hearing the parties and after going through the reasons given by the Appellate Authorities and the conclusions so drawn cannot be stated to be adverse and/or contrary to the record and/or law. The Tribunal's orders and the conclusions, so drawn, could not be stated to suffer from any legal infirmities. 21. It is also settled that timely Circulars issued by the CBDT under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, required to be kept in mind while entertaing/admitting and/or deciding the appeal. The reasons, therefore, so given referring to those Circulars have been kept in mind while passing this order as on merits also we have noted that there is no substantial question of law involved or arose. Therefore, there is no occasion to frame or re-frame any additional question of law for the reason above recorded. We are dismissing the appeal at the admission stage itself. 22. In view of the above, we are inclined to observe that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
