ITO, NEW DELHI vs. STAGE DOOR, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1624/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 November 2019AY 2011-125 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was primarily because the tax effect in the appeals was below the threshold limit specified by CBDT circulars for filing appeals, making them not maintainable. The Revenue also did not press the appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The appeals concerned the taxability of sponsorship charges received by the assessee for conducting stage shows.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The underlying issue was whether sponsorship charges for stage shows were taxable under Section 2(15).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(15),Section 254(2)

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, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

(A) The aforementioned appeals by Revenue are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity; and are hereby disposed off through this Consolidated Order. .-4998/Del/2014 and 1624/Del/2015. Stage Door. Grounds taken in these appeals of Revenue are as under:

ITA No.- 4998/Del/2014 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that major receipt i.e. 95% of the assessee has been obtained from sponsorship charges received from conducting stage shows and squarely covered under the first limb of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee is not running any educational institution and is neither providing any king of training nor any king of ‘Scholastic education’. The assessee is simply running a theatre and conducting stage shows by trained art workers and obtaining receipt by way of sponsorship and hence, the decision made in this case of Sole Trustee Lok Shikshana Trust vs. CIT 10 ITR 234 of Hon’ble Apex Court is not applicable in the case of the assessee.

3.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the AO was left with no option except to complete the time barring assessment based on the material available on records as even the counsel of the assessee vide his letter received on 18/02/2014 informed that he has been withdrawing from the case due to the non-compliance of the assessee and even after that no reply was received from the assessee.

4.

The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing.”

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring fee feet that major receipt of the assessee has been obtained from sponsorship charges received from conducting stage shows and squarely covered under the first limb of proviso to section 2(15) of the IT Act.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee is not running any educational institution and is neither providing any kind of training nor any kind of ‘Scholastic education’. The assessee is simply running a theatre and conducting stage shows by trained art workers and obtaining receipts by way of sponsorship and hence, in view of the decision made in this case of Sole Trustee Lok Shikshana Trust vs. CIT 10ITR .-4998/Del/2014 and 1624/Del/2015. Stage Door. 234 of Hon’ble Apex Court is not applicable in the case of the assessee.

3. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing.”

(B) Both sides, [Representatives of Revenue and the Assessee] were in agreement, at the time of hearing before us, that the tax effect in the present appeals are below Rs. 50,00,000/-. Vide recent CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with earlier CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, minimum threshold limit of tax effect for filing of appeals by Revenue in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has been enhanced to Rs. 50,00,000/-. In a subsequent clarification issued by CBDT vide F.No. 279/Misc/M- 93/2018-ITJ, dated 20/08/2019, it has been clarified by CBDT that the aforesaid revised monetary limit is also applicable to all pending appeals in ITAT. Having regard to the aforesaid, learned AR for the assessee submitted that the appeals were not maintainable. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Departmental Representative)

[“Ld. CIT (DR)”, for short] and learned Senior Departmental Representative (“Ld. Sr.

DR”, for short) also did not press these appeals. Therefore, both these appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed, being not maintainable; and also being not pressed.

(C) Before we part, we expressly clarify that Revenue will be at liberty to approach Income Tax Appellate Tribunal U/s 254(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961; seeking restoration of either of these appeals if it is found that aforesaid CBDT Circulars dated 08.08.2019 and 11.07.2018 are not applicable. .-4998/Del/2014 and 1624/Del/2015. Stage Door. (D) In the result, these two appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed being not maintainable, and also being not pressed. Our decision was orally pronounced in Open Court after conclusion of hearing on the date of hearing. Now this detailed written order is pronounced in the Open Court on 20/11/2019.

More judgments on Section 2(15)

All 2,878 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(15) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →