The DCIT, Circle-1,, JUNAGADH v. M/s. Rajoo Engineers Ltd.,, Manavadar

MA 22/RJT/2012 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 2224924 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AABCR3204M
Bench Rajkot
Appeal Number MA 22/RJT/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant The DCIT, Circle-1,, JUNAGADH
Respondent M/s. Rajoo Engineers Ltd.,, Manavadar
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 15-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 15-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 04-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 04-10-2013
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 26-06-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH RAJKOT. .. .. BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA JM AND SHRI D. K. SRIVASTAVA AM MA NO. 22/RJT/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.02/RJT/2011) / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 THE DCIT CIRCLE-1 JUNAGADH ( / APPELLANT) M/S. RAJOO ENGINEERS LTD. JUNAGADH ROAD MANAVADAR PAN: AABCR 3204 M / RESPONDENT ! '# / REVENUE BY DR JAYANT B JHAVERI DR $% ! '# / ASSESSEE BY SHRI M N MANVAR CA ' & ' %( / DATE OF HEARING 04.10.2013 ) %( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15.10.2013 / ORDER .. / T. K. SHARMA J. M. : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER:- 2. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED A SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE HON. ITAT AGAINST THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A)-IV DATED 28/10/ 2010 IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)- IV/0454/04-05 FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01 IN THE CASE OF ABOVE NAMED ASSESSEE. THE SAID APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY THE HON. ITAT BY DIS MISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL THE HON. ITAT HELD THAT- IN VIEW OF THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.5/2007 DATED 16 -07-2007 WHEREIN MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS (IN INCOME TAX MATTERS) AND OTHER CONDITIONS WERE SPECIFIED FOR FILING APPE ALS BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNALS ACCORDING TO WHICH THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL IS RS.200000/- THEREFORE ALL ITS DEPARTMENTAL OFFICERS ARE NOT FORCED TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WHENEVER TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.2 00 000/-. THEREFORE THE DEPARTMENT OUGHT TO HAVE NOT FILE THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT IS BINDING ON THE AO. THEREFORE THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSING AS NOT MAINTAINABLE . 3. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE FOR THE RELEVANT AY A REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION WAS INVOLVED AND THE SAID A UDIT OBJECTION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE WHILE FILING THE SECOND APPEAL AT GROUND NO.1 THE AO HAS SUCCESSFULLY MENTIONED THAT IN THE IN THE CASE AN AUDIT OBJECTION IS INVOLVED WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTE D BY THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER INSTRUCTION NO.03/201 1 DATED 09.2.2011 ADVERSE JUDGMENTS RELATING TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES SHOULD B E CONTESTED ON MERITS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE TAX EFFECT ENTAILED IS LES S THAN THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED OR THERE IS NO TAX EFFECT. (C) WHETHER REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION IN THE DEPARTM ENT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS THE DEPARTMENT HAS F ILED THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE HON. ITAT BUT THE ITAT HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT BUT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT TH E AUDIT OBJECTION IS INVOLVED IN MA 22-RJT-2012- RAJOO ENGINEERS LTD 2 THIS CASE. THEREFORE IN MY OPINION THERE IS AN APP ARENT MISTAKE IN THE APPELLATE ORDER REFERRED TO ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY THE HON. ITAT MAY BE REQUESTED TO KINDLY CONSIDER THE MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATION AND PASS NECESSARY RECTIFICATION ORDER COPIES OF ALL DOCUME NTS ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF AFORESAID MISCELLANEOU S APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF REVENUE DR. JAYANT B JHAVERI DR APPEARED AND CONTE NTED THAT IN THE BOTTOM OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN OFFICE NOTE IT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THIS ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN RE-OPENED ON THE BASIS OF REVENUE AUDIT OB JECTION AND REMEDIAL ACTION APPROVED BY THE CIT. RAJKOT-III RAJKOT VID E HIS LETTER NO.CIT-III/TECH/68- RA-25/03-04 DTD. 22.03.2004. HE CONTENDED THAT THIS FACT WAS IGNORED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF LOW TAX EFFECT AS PER INSTRUCTION NO.03/2011 DATED 09.02.2011. THE LD AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONTROVERT AGAINS T THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING WE RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.02/RJT/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN DUE COURSE OF TIME. 4. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( *.#. % D. K. SRIVASTAVA ) ( .#. -. / T. K. SHARMA) #( '/ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '/ /JUDICIAL MEMBER /#- 0/1/ ORDER DATE 15.10.2013 /RAJKOT *BT !'# $%'& / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT- THE DCIT CIRCLE-1 JUNAGADH 2. /RESPONDENT- M/S. RAJOO ENGINEERS LTD. JUNAGADH RO AD MANAVADAR 3. '151 % & 6% / CONCERNED CIT-III RAJKOT 4. & 6%- / CIT (A)-IV RAJKOT 5. :;< % / DR ITAT RAJKOT 6. <* >? / GUARD FILE. /#- '# / BY ORDER TRUE COPY PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT RAJKOT