Dcit Circle 1 Dindigul v. N Parvathy Textiles Dindigul

ITA 1763/CHNY/2017 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

Note: Please login to view full details
RSA Number 176321714 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN xxxxxxxxxxx
Bench xxxxxxxxxxx
Appeal Number xxxxxxxxxxx
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant xxxxxxxxxxx
Respondent xxxxxxxxxxx
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 12-12-2017
Appeal Filed By Department
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 12-12-2017
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 17-07-2017
Judgment Text
In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal A B Ench Chennai Before Shri N R S Ganesan Judicial Member And Shri A Mohan Alankamony Accountant Member I T A No 1763 Mds 2017 Assessment Year 2012 13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1 Dindigul Vs M S N Parvathy Textiles No 140 A East Car Street Dindigul 624 001 Pan Aabfn 3571 G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ar V Sreenivasan Jcit Respondent By Shri Tn Seetharaman Advocate Date Of Hearing 12 12 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 12 12 2017 O R D E R Per A Mohan Alankamony Am This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax A Ppeals 1 Madurai Dated 24 04 2017 In Ita No 0135 2016 17 For The Assessment Year 2012 13 Passed U S 250 6 R W S 14 3 3 147 Of The Act 2 Ita No 1763 Mds 2017 2 The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In Its Appeal 1 The Order Of The Cit A Is Opposed To Law On The Facts And In The Circumstances Of The Case 2 The Cit A Erred In Holding That Reopening Is Ba D In Law Since It Based On Change In Opinion When The Statute Permits The A Ssessing Officer To Reopen The Assessment Within Four Years From The En D Of The Assessment Year If He Has A Reason To Believe That Any Income Charg Eable To Tax Has Escaped Assessment 3 The Cit A Has Erred In Holding That While Compl Eting The Assessment The Assessing Officer Was Aware That The Return Was Fil Ed Belatedly And Thereafter Had Allowed Deduction U S 80 Ia And There Fore The Reopening Of Assessment Is Not Permissible In Law The Cit A Ou Ght To Have Seen That There Is No Such Discussion In The Assessment Order And Hence Ought Not To Have Cancelled The Entire Assessment Proceedings 4 The Cit A Has Erred In Holding That There Was R Easonable Cause And The Delay Of 5 Days Was Unavoidable Due To The Fact Tha T The System Was Not Functioning Properly And Therefore The Assessee Is Entitle To Deduction U S 80 Ia 5 The Cit A Ought To Have Seen That As Per Sectio N 80 Ac In Order To Claim Deduction U S 80 Ia The Return Of Income Shall Be F Iled Within The Due Date U S 139 1 And Since The Above Condition Was Not Sa Tisfied By The Assessee The Assessee Is Not Entitled To Deduction U S 80 Ia And Hence Ought To Have Sustained The Addition Made By The Assessing Office R 6 For These And Such Other Grounds That May Be Add Uced At The Time Of Hearing It Is Prayed That The Order Of The Cit A M Ay Be Reversed And That Of The Assessing Officer Restored 3 At The Outset The Ld Ar Submitted Before Us Th At The Above Mentioned Appeal Is Not Maintainable Due To T He Circular No 21 2013 Dated 10 12 2015 Issued By The Cbdt With Respect To Monetary Limit Hence It Was Pleaded That The App Eal Of The 3 Ita No 1763 Mds 2017 Revenue May Be Dismissed The Ld Dr Could Not Con Trovert To The Submission Of The Ld Ar 4 After Hearing Both Sides We Find Merit In The S Ubmission Of The Ld Ar The Cbdt Has Directed The Revenue Not T O File Appeal Before The Tribunal Where The Tax Effect Does Not E Xceed Rs 10 Lakhs In The Above Mentioned Appeal Of The Assesse E The Tax Effect Is Less Than Rs 10 Lakhs Therefore We Here By Dismiss The Appeal Filed By The Revenue As Not Maintainable 5 In The Result The Appeal Filed By The Revenue I S Dismissed In Limini Order Pronounced On The 12 Th December 2017 At Chennai Sd Sd N R S Ganesan Judicial Member A Mohan Alankamony Accountant Member Chennai Dated 12 Th December 2017 Rsr Copy To 1 Appellant 2 Respondent 3 Cit A 4 Cit 5 0 Dr 6 1 Gf