The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda v. Anirudh P. Sethi
[Citation -2019-LL-0903-76]

Citation 2019-LL-0903-76
Appellant Name The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda
Respondent Name Anirudh P. Sethi
Court ITAT-Ahmedabad
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 03/09/2019
Assessment Year 2011-12
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags monetary limit • grant relief • tax effect
Bot Summary: 1(c) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in shifting the burden on AO when the primary onus of providing basic information like Phone Nos./PAN and postal addresses were not provided by the assessee at any stage. 1(d) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in ignoring that in the nature of profession of consultancy as admitted by the assessee, there cannot be any expenditure to the extent of 80 which the ld. 1(e) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that assessee has deposited cash for refund in 790 cases when no detail of any account where such deposit was made furnished before the AO or before the Ld. CIT(A). Whether Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the amount of Rs. 14,94,429/- without appreciating the fact that no evidence has been produced by the assessee in respect of expenditure claimed. At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the Ld.AR for the assessee that appeal filed by the Revenue is hit by recently issued CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08/08/2019 revising the previous thresholds pertaining to tax effects. In the instant case, the tax effect on the disputed issues raised by the Revenue is stated to be not exceeding Rs.50 lakhs and therefore appeal of the Revenue is required to be dismissed in limine. Now we turn to the cross objection filed on behalf of the assessee in the Revenue appeal.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRADAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 345/AHD/2015 & CO No. 01/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) DCIT, Shri Anirudh P. Sethi Circle- 1(2), Vs. B-228, Anand Baug Society, 2 n d Floor, Aaykar Makarpura, Baroda Bhavan, Race Course Circle, Baroda PAN/GIR No. : ANB PS5 743 (Appellant/Respondent) .. (Respondent/Cross Objector) Appellant by : Shri Sumit Kr. Verma, Sr. DR. Respondent by : None Date of 27/08/2019 Hearing Date of 03/09/2019 Pronouncement ORDER PER BENCH:- captioned appeal has been filed at instance of Revenue against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Baroda (CIT(A) in short), dated 20.10.2014 arising in assessment order dated 17.02.2014 passed by Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in assessment year 2011-12. ITA No. 345/Ahd/2015 & CO .No. 01/Ahd/2019 [DCIT vs. Shri Anirudh P. Sethi] A.Y. 2011-12 -2- 2. ground of appeal raised by Revenue reads as under:- 1. Whether in law and on facts order of Ld. CIT(A) is perverse in allowing relief of Rs. 1,56,86,360/- out of total addition amounting to Rs. 2,30,25,588/- by relying on decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Pradeep Shantilal Patel [2014] 42 taxmann.com 2(Guj.) and Hon ble ITAT in case of Dineshbhai Dhansukhlal MIthaiwala vs. ITO [2014] 49 taxmann.com 583 when ratio of decision of these cases is not applicable to facts of this case. 1(a) Whether Ld. CIT(A) has misdirected himself in holding that providing merely e-mail ID is sufficient to grant relief to assessee when such e- mail ID do not establish any verifiable identify and they are not reliable evidences. 1(b) Whether Ld. CIT(A) has cast upon A.O. imposition task of verifying genuineness of more than 700 e-mail ID by stating that since AO has not made such verifications addition should be deleted. 1(c) Whether Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in shifting burden on AO when primary onus of providing basic information like Phone Nos./PAN and postal addresses were not provided by assessee at any stage. 1(d) Whether Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in ignoring that in nature of profession of consultancy as admitted by assessee, there cannot be any expenditure to extent of 80% which ld. CIT(A) has allowed on presumption basis. 1(e) Whether Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that assessee has deposited cash for refund in 790 cases when no detail of any account where such deposit was made furnished before AO or before Ld. CIT(A). 2. Whether Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing amount of Rs. 14,94,429/- without appreciating fact that no evidence has been produced by assessee in respect of expenditure claimed. 3. At time of hearing, it was submitted by Ld.AR for assessee that appeal filed by Revenue is hit by recently issued CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08/08/2019 revising previous thresholds pertaining to tax effects. It is inter alia noticed that CBDT vide Instruction No. F. No. 279/Misc/M- 93/2018-ITJ dt. 20/08/2019 has observed that Circular No.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 relating to enhancement of monetary limits is also applicable to all pending appeals. As per aforesaid Circular read I T N o . 3 4 5 / Ah d / 2 0 1 5 & C O . N o . 0 1 / Ah d / 2 0 1 9 [ D C I T v s . S h r i i r u d h P . S e t h i ] A. Y . 2 0 1 1 - 1 2 - 3 - with instructions, all pending appeals filed by Revenue are liable to be dismissed as measure for reducing litigation where tax effect does not exceed prescribed monetary limit which is now revised at Rs.50 Lakhs. In instant case, tax effect on disputed issues raised by Revenue is stated to be not exceeding Rs.50 lakhs and therefore appeal of Revenue is required to be dismissed in limine. 4. Learned DR for Revenue fairly admitted applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable. However, it will be open to Revenue to seek restoration of its appeal on showing inapplicability of aforesaid CBDT Circular in any manner. 5. In result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 6. Now we turn to cross objection filed on behalf of assessee in Revenue appeal. At time of hearing Ld. Authorised Representative for assessee could not place any serious argument to persuade us for interfering with order of CIT(A). 7. In result, Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 03/09/2019 Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 03/09/2019 TANMAY TRUE COPY DCIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda v. Anirudh P. Sethi
Report Error