THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, SURAT vs. M/S. MAA KRUPA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1275/AHD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 November 2020AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets higher monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against a penalty order, challenging the deletion of a penalty amount by the CIT(A). The tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed by the Revenue, with a tax effect below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, is maintainable before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON’BLE & DR. A. L. SAINI, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Bipin Jariwala - AR
Hearing: 12/11/2020Pronounced: 12/11/2020

Appellant by : Shri Bipin Jariwala - AR Respondent by : Shri B P K Panda – Sr. DR सुनवाईक�तार�ख/ Date of Hearing : 12/11/2020 घोषणाक�तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 12/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2009-10, is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1, Surat [in short “CIT(A)”] in appeal no. CAS-I/244/2013-14, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) dated 27.09.2013.

2.

In this revenue’s appeal in AY.2009-10, we noticed that revenue has challenged the amount of penalty to the tune of Rs.37,38,000/- deleted by the ld. CIT(A).

3.

Recently the CBDT has issued Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, whereby the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and High Courts and SLP before Supreme Court have been Assessment Year:2009-10 Maa Krupa Construction Company increased as measure for reducing Litigation. The revised monetary limits laid down in para-2 of this Circular are as follows:

1.

Before Appellate Tribunal Rs. 50,00,000/- 2. Before High Court Rs.1,00,00,000/- 3. Before Supreme Court Rs. 2,00,00,000/-

4.

In the present case, the tax effect by the revenue is less than Rs.50,00,000/-. Though this appeal had been filed by the revenue on 13/05/2015 and was within the monetary limit in the form of tax effect for filing appeals before Tribunal, in view of the recent Circular of CBDT, even such appeals will be governed by the new monetary limits laid down in the CBDT Circular No.17/2019 referred to above.

5.

It is a settled law that the Circulars issued by CBDT are binding on the Revenue. This position was confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. reported in 267 ITR 272 wherein their Lordships examined the earlier decisions of the Apex Court with regard to binding nature of the Circular and laid down that when a circular issued by the Board remains in operation then the Revenue is bound by it and cannot be allowed to plead that it is not valid or that it is contrary to the terms of the statute. The appeal under consideration has certainly been filed contrary to the Circular issued by the CBDT Circular No.17 dated 08.08.2019.

6.

In the event, the Revenue finds at a later point of time that the tax effect in the appeal is more than Rs.50 lakhs or despite low tax effect the appeal of the revenue is maintainable, the revenue is at liberty to move this Tribunal for recalling of this order 7. In view of the above, we hold that the appeal filed by the Department, against the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), is contrary to the policy decision of Assessment Year:2009-10 Maa Krupa Construction Company the Department and as such the appeal filed by the Department in is dismissed in limine.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue (in AY. 2009-10) is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 12/11/2020

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →