Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘FRIDAY’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Farhat Khan, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 12.03.2021 Date of Order : 12.03.2021
O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
MA NO.269/DEL/2019 Applicant, DCIT, Circle 7 (1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Revenue’), by moving misc. application sought to rectify the mistake under section 254 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on the grounds inter alia that Assessing
2 MA No.269/Del/2019 and ITA No.166/Del./2016 Officer (AO) has inadvertently filed the appeal on issues other than the issues approved vide sanction letter dated 22.12.2015 and as such, the actual issues flagged in the sanction order qua which the appeal was to be filed was remained untouched and sought to recall the order.
We have perused the application, sanction order, impugned order passed by the Tribunal in vide which appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on account of low tax effect in view of the Circular No.3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018. However, facts of the matter is that the AO made addition of Rs.61.33 lakhs, Rs.31.44 lakhs and Rs.2,832/- on account of disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b), on account of subscription deposit scheme and u/s 14A of the Act respectively leading to the conclusion that this appeal was not covered vide Circular No.3/2018 (supra). Consequently, the appeal order dated 09.10.2018 passed in AY 2012-13 by the Tribunal is ordered to be recalled and the appeal is taken up for hearing for today itself. ./2016 3. The Appellant, DCIT, Circle 7 (1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue’) by filing the present appeal sought to 3 MA No.269/Del/2019 and ITA No.166/Del./2016 set aside the impugned order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2011-12.
Perusal of the aforesaid appeal filed by the Revenue apparently shows that the same is having low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019 vide which the Revenue has been directed not to prefer any appeal in case the tax effect is less than Rs.50,00,000/- and this factual position has been fairly conceded by the Ld. Senior DR
We have heard the Senior DR on the issue in controversy and perused the material on record. Perusal of CBDT Circular (supra) shows that monetary limit for filing the appeal by the Department before the Tribunal, Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court has been revised and the relevant portion of the aforesaid circular is extracted as under:
“Subject : Further Enhancement of Monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and SLPs/appeals before Supreme Court - Amendment to Circular 3 of 2018 -Measures for reducing litigation. Reference is invited to the Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 (the Circular) of Central Board of Direct Taxes (the Board) and its amendment dated 20th August. 2018 vide which monetary limits for filing of income tax appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. High Courts and SLPs/appeals before Supreme Court have been specified.
4 MA No.269/Del/2019 and ITA No.166/Del./2016 Representation has also been received that an anomaly in the said circular at para 5 may be removed. 2. As a step towards further management of litigation. it has been decided by the Board that monetary limits for filing of appeals in income-tax cases be enhanced further through amendment in Para 3 of the Circular mentioned above and accordingly, the table for monetary limits specified in Para 3 of the Circular shall read as follows:
S. No. Appeals/SLPs in Income-tax Monetary matters Limit (in Rs) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 50,00,000/- 2 Before High Court 1,00,00,000/- 3 Before Supreme Court 2,00,00,000/-
Further, with a view to provide parity in filing of appeals in scenarios where separate order is passed by higher appellate authorities for each assessment year vis-a-vis where composite order for more than one assessment years is passed. para 5 of the circular is substituted by the following para: "5. The Assessing Officer shall calculate the tax effect separately for every assessment year in respect of the disputed issues in the case of every assessee. If, in the case of an assessee, the disputed issues arise in more than one assessment year, appeal can be filed in respect of such assessment year or years in which the tax effect in respect of the disputed issues exceeds the monetary limit specified in para 3. No appeal shall be filed in respect of an assessment year or years in which the tax effect is less than the monetary limit specified in para 3. Further, even in the case of composite order of any High Court or appellate authority which involves more than one assessment year and common issues in more than one assessment year, no appeal shall be filed in respect of an assessment year or years in which the tax effect is less than the monetary limit specified in para 3. In case where a composite order/ judgment involves more than one assessee. each assessee shall be dealt with separately."
5 MA No.269/Del/2019 and ITA No.166/Del./2016 In view of the CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August, 6. 2019 having retrospective effect as coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Dinesh Madhavlal Patel [TS-469-ITAT- 2019(Ahd)] 2019-TIOL-1556-ITAT-AHM dated 14th August, 2019 has already decided the issue as to the applicability of the captioned circular to the pending appeals in affirmative and what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid appeal is not maintainable because of low tax effect i.e. less than Rs.50,00,000/- hence, the aforesaid appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed having been become infructuous. However, in case, the present appeal is found to be maintainable at any stage for any technical reasons, the Department shall be at liberty to seek recall of this order under relevant provisions of law. Order pronounced in open court on this 12th day of March, 2021 after the conclusion of the virtual hearing.