Ita/25/2023 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 v. Shakuntala Daga

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESHON THE 23[rd] OF JUNE, 2023 INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 25 of 2023 BETWEEN:- PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKARBHAWAN, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYAPRADESH) (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT). .....APPELLANT AND SHAKUNTALA DAGA 38, CHANDRASHEKHAR MARG,NAGDA, DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This appeal coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following: ORDER Heard on I.A.No. 3916/2023, an application for condonation of delay. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Also heard on the question of admission. 4. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') beingaggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal (ITAT), Bench Indore in ITA No. 251/Ind/2021 for the assessmentyear 2015-16. 5. In short, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is,whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law, as is required to bemade out under Section 260A of the Act of 1961, that being the prerequisite ofadmission of the appeal. 6 . The brief facts of the case are that the assesses/respondent filed e-return of income on 30.03.2016 for the assessment year 2015-16 declaring atotal income of Rs. 12,31,490/-. The assessee is an individual carrying on thebusiness of civil contractor. The assessment was completed under Section143(3) of the Act on 23.05.2017 at Rs. 12,57,250/- after making additional ofRs. 25,760/-. Thereafter, the audit objection was raised by Revenue AuditParty (RAP). The assessment order of the Assessing Officer under Section143(3) of the Act was set aside as it was erroneous and prejudicial to theinterest of the revenue by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,Ujjain vide order dated 23.03.2020 passed under Section 263 of the Act. TheAssessing Officer was directed to examine the issue and pass a freshassessment order after providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Thereafter, the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer, NFAC(National Faceless Appeal Centre) under Section 147 read with Section 263 ofthe Act vide order dated 22.09.2021 by making addition of Rs. 18,09,565/- atassessed income of Rs. 30,81,055/-. Being dissatisfied by the order passed bythe CIT under Section 263 of the Act dated 23.03.2020, the respondent filed an 3 appeal before the ITAT Bench at Indore. The ITAT vide its order 28.07.2022allowed the appeal filed by the assessee/respondent and quashed the orderpassed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ujjain. 7 . Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though, the taxeffect as per Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, is less than the prescribedmonetary limit, however, the present case is covered under exception clause ofparagraph 10(c) of the CBDT Circular No. 3/18 dated 11.07.2018. Therefore, itis a fit case to be entertained. 8 . Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned 3 appeal before the ITAT Bench at Indore. The ITAT vide its order 28.07.2022allowed the appeal filed by the assessee/respondent and quashed the orderpassed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ujjain. 7 . Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though, the taxeffect as per Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, is less than the prescribedmonetary limit, however, the present case is covered under exception clause ofparagraph 10(c) of the CBDT Circular No. 3/18 dated 11.07.2018. Therefore, itis a fit case to be entertained. 8 . Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned ITAT failed to consider the fact that the learned Principal CommissionerIncome Tax erred in assuming the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act andin quashing the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 by restoring theassessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 23.05.2017. TheITAT also erred in holding that the assessment order of the Assessing Officerpassed under Section 143(3) of the Act is not erroneous and prejudicial to theinterest of the revenue. The assess had failed to submit proper explanation fordifference in receipts of Rs. 22,70,669/- which could not have been done. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the substantialquestions of law. 10. Making addition/deletion cannot be said to be erroneous andprejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, in our opinion, the present casedoes not involve any substantial question of law so as to meet the provisions ofSection 260(A) of the Act for admitting the appeal. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in thisappeal, which in our opinion deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine. (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)JUDGE vidya (HIRDESH)JUDGE