2019 (10) TMI 1122

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the order dated 05.01.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)"] relevant to the A.Y.2013-14. 3. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. During course of hearing, ld. DR for the revenue submitted that tax effect involved in this appeal filed by the revenue is less than Rs. 50 lacs and in view of latest CBDT circular No. 3/2018 dated 11-7-2018, and also modified circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019, appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable and needs to be dismissed. The Ld. DR, further argued that, the issue involved in this appeal is appears to be covered by exception provided under clause (e) of subsequent circular and therefor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n for pending appeals and accordingly, rejected the arguments of the revenue that the effect of the circular shall come into force from the date of issue of this circular. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also taken note of circulars issued by the CBDT including circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019, and also by following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench, we dismissed appeal filed by the revenue as not maintainable. However, we keep open option to the revenue to file a miscellaneous application, if necessary, in case the issues involved in the present appeal comes within 3 exceptions as provided in para 10 of said circular and clause (e) of subsequent circular. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s) 4. Shri Hiteshkumar G. Patel 5. Shri Kalpesh R. Patel 6. Shri Kamlesh Premjibhai Sondarva 7. Thereafter, the AO disallowed the said bogus purchase and added to the income of the assessee. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who restricted the addition to the extent of 25% of the bogus purchase. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before us. 8. We have heard arguments advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the CIT(A) has wrongly confiormed the addition to the extent of 25% of the total bogus purchase in sum of Rs. 43,53,144/-, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is liable to be set aside in ....