AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....revenue. 2. On perusal of record and after hearing the rival submissions, as claimed, the tax effect is Rs. 1,55,600/- which is within the prescribed limit, therefore, as per the instructions issued by CBDT, the department is not permitted to file the appeal. Our view is supported by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajan Cloth Stores (ITA No. 365/Ind/2010) order dated 31.5.2011. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereunder :- "This appeal is by the revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A)-I, Indore, dated 4.3.2010 on the ground that the ld. CIT(A) erred in overlooking the provision of sec. 275(1A) of I.T. Act and deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs. 2,32,780/-. 2. During hearing of this appeal, we have heard Shri Pradeep Kuamr Mitra, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue and Shri S.S. Deshpande, ld. Counsel for the assessee. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal is below prescribed monetary limit, therefore, straight way, the appeal of the revenue may be dismissed. The ld. Sr. DR fairly admitted that the tax effect is below prescribed monetary limit. 3. We have considered the rival....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee raised a preliminary objection that since the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit, therefore, the department is not permitted to file this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed on this short ground itself. However, the learned Sr. DR fairly agreed that the tax effect is below prescribed monetary limit. 3. We have considered the rival submissions of ld. representatives of both sides and perused the material available on record. In view of the above assertion of the learned respective counsels, we are of the considered opinion that this appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed. Our view finds support from the decision dated 2nd December, 2009 of the Tribunal in the case of Himanshu Floor Mills (ITA No. 507/Ind/2009). The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereunder :- "This appeal is by the revenue challenging the order of the CIT(A) dated 26.8.2009. During hearing of this appeal, I have heard Smt. Aparna Karan, learned Senior DR, and no-body was present for the assessee. Registered notice of hearing was sent to the assessee on 11.11.2009. The assessee neither presented itself nor moved any application for adjournment, there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt.". 2. During hearing of the appeal, we have heard Smt. Aparna Karan, ld. Sr. DR and Shri H.P. Verma along with Shri Ashish Goyal, Ld. Counsel for assessee. At the outset, it was pointed out that there is typographical error in mentioning the figure of Rs. 6,37,206/- in the ground of appeal as the correct figure is Rs. 3,94,732/-. The assertion of the assessee was consented to be correct by the ld. Sr. DR. Further, it was pointed out that the tax effect is also below monetary limit, therefore, the appeal of the revenue may be dismissed. The ld. Sr. DR fairly agreed to the submission of the assessee to the extent that the tax effect is below prescribed monetary limit for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. S.No. Authority Monetary Limit (In Rs.) 1 ITAT 2,00,000/- 2 Appeal under section 260A before High Court 4,00,000/- 3 Supreme Court 10,00,000/- The Board further clarified the tax effect, which means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable, had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the issue against which appeal is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loss which has not been set off. Consequently, we are in agreement that in view of the provisions of section 72 it should be allowed. Consequently, there is no grievance to the revenue since it has been remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer to do the needful after verification of records of earlier years. My view finds support from the ratio laid down in CIT v. J.H. Gotla; 156 ITR 323 (SC); Tara Devi Behl v. CIT; 218 ITR 541 (P&H). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.; 160 ITR 920 even went to the extent that ITO must allow set off even if it is not claimed by the assessee because a duty is cast upon the ITO to apply the relevant provisions of the Indian Incometax Act for the purpose of determining the true figure of assessee's taxable income and the consequential tax liability. Merely because the assessee fails to claim the benefit of set off cannot relieve the ITO of his duty to apply section 72 in an appropriate case. In view of these facts and judicial pronouncements, I have found no infirmity in the impugned order, consequently, this ground of the revenue also fails. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isallowance of interest u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The crux of arguments on behalf of the assessee is that the interest was paid at the rate of 24%. This factual matrix was not controverted by the revenue. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Brief facts are that the disallowance of Rs. 1,25,000/- was made out of Rs. 2,24,480/- by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(2)(b) by claiming that the interest at excessive rate was paid. Our attention was invited to the interest paid to various parties and the confirmation by the parties at pages 113 to 120 of the paper book. All the lenders are assessed in the same Ward and the interest was paid as per the copy of accounts, consequently, on the facts available on record, no disallowance should have been made because normally while getting the amount from the bank lot of formalities is required to be fulfilled. The ratio laid down in the decisions in Birla Gwalior Private Limited; 43 ITR 847 (MP), East India Industries Limited; 31 ITR 803 (SC) and ITO vs. Chambamal Rupchand; 70 TTJ 43 (ASR) supports the case of he assessee, therefore, this ground of the assessee in the cross objection is allo....