Back
BHARGAV D. KARIA, NIRAL R. MEHTA
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – Appellant
Versus
Hanubhai R Sangani – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dev Patel for learned senior standing counsel Mr.Varun Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Ketan Shah for the respondent.
2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Ketan Shah waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent.
2.1 Since the issue involved is in narrow compass, with the request and consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final consideration today itself.
3. This petition is filed challenging order dated 06th January, 2020 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Ahmedabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MA No.220/Ahd/2019 for Assessment Year 2010-11.
3.1 The assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was finalised in case of the respondent by determining the total income at Rs.87,10,080/- as against the return of income at Rs.83,40,540/-.
3.2 It appears that thereafter the Revenue Audit under letter dated 27th January, 2014 raised objection with regard to disallowance of proportionate expenditure under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 19
The court established that accepted audit objections necessitate a merits-based review of appeals, overriding the low tax effect dismissal under CBDT circulars.
Office Memorandum was issued pursuant to the said circular stating inter alia that by virtue of the powers of CBDT under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the monetary limits fixed for filing appea....
The CBDT circulars did not apply retrospectively to pending appeals, and a special order from the CBDT was required for appeals to be filed on merits in cases involving organized tax evasion activity....
The court affirmed that audit objections must directly relate to the assessment in question for exceptions in CBDT Circulars to apply, impacting the validity of appeals based on tax effect.
Assessment orders must provide adequate reasoning and consider potential hardship; failure renders them unsustainable, necessitating reevaluation by tax authorities.
Assessments deemed excessively high must consider genuine hardship, allowing stays without mandatory pre-payment when necessary to protect taxpayer interests.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
