INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 254 Section 268A

Appeal (Tribunal) - Rectification of mistake apparent from record - Dismmissal of revenue's appeal on ground of low tax effect - Appeal was covered by exception in terms of clause 10(c) of the Board Circular No. 3/2018, dated 11-7-2018.

Revenue filed miscellaneous application against order of Tribunal, wherein revenue's appeal was dismissed in limine as not pressed/withdrawn in view of section 268A for low tax effect. Assessee contended that when no objection was raised by revenue at time of hearing of its' appeal before Tribunal (on 23-8-2019), it could not raise any objection thereafter and neither could it possibly place any material in substantiation of its claims at later stage inasmuch as mistake rectifiable under section 254(2) was concerned.Held: Clause 10(c) states of a case where a revenue audit objection is accepted by the Department. It is this clause which the authorization memo refers to Circular 3/2018 was later modified by Circular 17/2019, dated 8-8-2019, enhancing the monetary limit for appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 50 lakhs. The filing of instant appeals, in view of the applicability of clause 10(c) of Circular 3/2018, as clarified by the authorization memo, was thus a circumstance attending filing of the appeals in the instant case. Dismissal of the revenue's appeal by Tribunal, in view of the authorization memo, dated 30-10-2018 on record, clearly stating of appeal being filed, despite its low tax effect, was admissible in view of clause 10(c) of Board Circular 3/2018, dated 11-7-2018, a clear case of a mistake manifest on record. Authorization memo, an official document, can still be subject to verification by Tribunal so as to satisfy itself, which itself implies having regard thereto, which the law obliges it to. Revenue's instant applications were, therefore, admissible, and could not be ousted at threshold on ground that no objection was raised by revenue at time of hearing. Thus, restoration of the revenue's captioned appeal was directed for being heard and decided on merits.

REFERRED : Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 295 ITR 466 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1553 (SC), CIT Chennai v. Shri Shanthinath Benefit Fund Ltd. (2015) 371 ITR 271 (Mad) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 712 (Mad-HC), Pothina Venkateswara Swamy and Pothina Venkata Rama Rao v. Asstt. CIT (2014) 369 ITR 639 (AP) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 60 (AP-HC), Dholadhar Investment (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2014) 362 ITR 111 (Del) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1698 (Del-HC), CIT v. Concord Pharmaceuticals 2009 TaxPub(DT) 710 (Guj-HC), Asstt. CIT, Circle Satna, Satna. v. Anurag Shrivastava, ITO, Ward-2, Satna v. Smt. Seema Bhattacharya, Smt. Jharna Bhattacharya, Bhaskar Bhattacharya (HUF), Shashi Bhushan Bhattacharya (HUF) 2020 TaxPub(DT) 3712 (Jab-Trib), Asstt. CIT, Circle 1 (1), Jabalpur, ITO (Exemption), Dy. CIT (TDS), Bhopal & Ors. v. Shri Sureshchand Jain, Smt. Gurucharan Kaur Mokha, Shri Manjeet Singh Mokha, Shri Padam Singhania, Shri Harshwardhan Singhania, St. Michale's Society, J.P. Tobacco Prod. (P) Ltd., Shri Arun Kumar Tiwari, Shri Anurag Srivastava, Shri Suresh Ku. Upadhyay & Sons, Smt. Jasmeet Kaur Mokha, Shri Sarabjeet Singh Mokha, Shri Ramayan Prasad Dubey, Shri Vimal Agrawal (HUF), Shri Vishwanath Dubey, Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain & Ors. [IT(SS) A No. 44/Jab/13, IT(SS) A No. 18/Jab/16, IT(SS) A No. 19/Jab/16, ITA No. 23/Jab/18, ITA No. 45/Jab/18, ITA No. 29/Jab/16, ITA 90/Jab/2015, ITA 151/Jab/2015, ITA 152/Jab/2015, IT(SS) A No. 5/Jab/05, ITA No. 128/Jab/16 AND Others, dt. 23-8-2019] and ITO Ward 3 (2), Ahmedabad v. Dinesh Madhavlal Patel 2019 TaxPub(DT) 5093 (Ahd-Trib).

FAVOUR : Against the assessee.

A.Y. :

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT