ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S MASU INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4184/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 September 2018AY 2010-115 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 held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue as it did not fall under any of the exceptions listed in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The Department appealed an order by the CIT(A) which deleted an addition of Rs. 12,45,497/- made under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). The tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT.

What were the issues?

Whether the Department's appeal, with a tax effect below the monetary limit, should be pressed despite CBDT guidelines. Whether the appeal falls under any exceptions to the withdrawal of appeals with low tax effect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Shri B.B. Bhagat, Adv
For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR, Shri B.B. Bhagat, Adv
Hearing: 18.06.2018Pronounced: 14.09.2018

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This appeal is preferred by the department against the order dated 28.04.2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-43, New Delhi for assessment year 2010-11 and it challenges the action of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) imposing deletion of Rs. 12,45,497/- u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

Admittedly, the tax effect in the appeal is below the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs.

1.

2.1 In terms of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 read with Section 268 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, this appeal by the Revenue should have been withdrawn or should not have been pressed by the Revenue.

2.2 We also note that vide CBDT’s Instructions dated 20.08.2018 bearing F.No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt), there has been an amendment to para 10 of the Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 wherein the said para 10 has been amended as under:-

“10. Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is no tax effect.

(a) Where the Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge, or (b) Where Board’s order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or (c) Where Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, or (d) Where addition relates to undisclosed foreign income/undisclosed foreign assets (including financial assets)/undisclosed foreign bank account.

(e) Where addition is based on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI/ ED/DRI/SFIO/Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI).

(f) Cases where prosecution has been filed by the Department and is pending in the Court. ”

2.3 However, after going through the records before us, we are of the opinion that apparently the Department’s Appeal is not covered by any of the aforesaid exceptions as enumerated in the aforesaid amendment to the Instructions and, therefore, delaying the disposal of the appeal by waiting for the Report from the Field Officers will not be in true spirit of the Circular. Accordingly, we deem it fit to treat this Appeal as dismissed with the liberty to the Department to seek recall of this order by filing a Misc.

Application before us in case the Department’s Appeal falls in any of the above exceptions. Accordingly, in view of the CBDT’s Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.7.2018, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in limine.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14th September, 2018.

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →