Dismissed

Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cirle-1, Patna v. Dr. Binay Kumar Singh huf, Patna

Patna HC16 Mar 2016MA/735/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Revenue filed an appeal after the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to delete an addition made during search under Section 132. The High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that it could not be maintained as the tax effect was less than twenty lakhs per a 2015 Government Circular.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as it could not be maintained due to the tax effect being less than Rupees twenty lakhs pursuant to a 2015 Circular.

Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cirle-1, Patna Vs Dr. Binay… — Income Tax | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Miscellaneous Appeal No.735 of 2014

¶3

Miscellaneous Appeal No.735 of 2014
===========================================================
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirle-1, Patna
.... .... Appellant
Versus
Dr. Binay Kumar Singh (HUF)N, H-21, DOCTORS's COLONY,
KANKARBAGH, PATNA
.... .... Respondent
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA)
Date: 16-03-2016

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶5

The Revenue is in appeal being aggrieved by an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna on 17^th of July, 2014, whereby IT(SS)A. No. 30(Pat)/2011 for the Assessment Year 2002-2003 was allowed by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee.

¶6

As per the facts on record, search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 05^th of November, 2004 at the residential premises of Dr. Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, his family members and associates. The Karta of the assessee is the son of said Dr. Rajeshwar Prasad Singh. The learned Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 9,73,871/- in the relevant Assessment Year in question. Learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal and deleted the addition so made.

¶7

A perusal of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, (Appeals) shows that addition of Rs. 9,73,871/- made in the income of the assessee was held to be for non-business purposes during the relevant Assessment Year 2002-2003.

¶8

Patna High Court MA No.735 of 2014 dt.16-03-2016

¶9

2 /2

¶10

The Tribunal set aside that part of addition amounting to Rs. 9,73,871/-. Thus the tax effect is less than Rupees twenty lacs.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a Circular of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi dated 10.12.2015 whereby an appeal before the High Court having tax effect of less than Rupees twenty lacs are not to be filed.

¶12

Since the tax effect on account of deletion of addition of amount of Rs. 9,73,871/- would be less than Rupees twenty lacs, therefore, in view of the Circular mentioned above, this appeal cannot be maintained by the revenue before this Court.

¶13

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

¶14

(Hemant Gupta, J)

¶15

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)

¶16

P.K.P. N.A.F.R.

¶17

Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cirle-1, Patna v. Dr. Binay Kumar Singh huf, Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cirle-1, Patna v. Dr. Binay Kumar Singh huf, Patna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjana Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Bimal Chandra Sadhya Vs State and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State and Ors.

South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr.

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

P S R Highway Carriers Of India Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.