DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. INDONET GLOBAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the present case, the affidavit filed by Shri R.Bhoopathi is on a plain paper neither Notarized, nor ADMINISTERED on oath, nor the necessary adhesive court fees are paid. This being so, the affidavit filed is neither an affidavit for the purpose of condoning the delay nor is an affidavit as per the requirements for the purpose under Rule-10 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Effectively what has been done is that under the guise of an affidavit, the Officer has only filed a letter seeking condonation of delay, which is not permissible under any of the provisions of the law, nor Rule-10 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed for defects uncured by applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Prasad Productions P. Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal [1997] 226 ITR 778 (Mad).

Before us, the learned Counsel for the Revenue and the Assessee fairly conceded that the tax effect involved in this appeal does not exceed Rs.50 /- lakhs.

Vide CBDT circular No.17/2019 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt) dated 8th August, 2019, the income tax department has further liberalized its policy for not filing appeals against the decisions of the appellate authorities in favour of the taxpayers, wherein tax involved is below certain threshold limits, and announced its policy decision not to file, or press, the appeals, before this Tribunal, against the appellate orders favourable to the assessee in the cases in which overall tax effect, excluding interest except when interest itself is in dispute, is Rs 50 /- lakhs or less.

In view of the above factual background and the concession by this CBDT circular, this appeal filed by the Revenue must be dismissed as withdrawn.

This circular, only enhances the monetary limits and gives further relaxation. The old circular, beyond any dispute or controversy, categorically applied to the pending appeals as on the date of issuance of circular.

The circular dated 8th August 2019 is not a standalone circular. It is to be read in conjunction with the CBDT circular No. 3/2018 (and subsequent amendment thereto), and all it does is to replace paragraph nos. 3 and 5 of the said circular. This is evident from the following extracts from the circular dated 8th August 2019:

Clearly, all other portions of the circular no. 3 of 2018 (supra) have remained intact. The portion which has remained intact includes paragraph 13 of the aforesaid circular which is as follows:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax-5,New Delhi Vs. Keshav Power Ltd., in SLP No.21497/2019 dated 16.08.2019 reported in 2019(8)TMI 811(SC) has also applied the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 has dismissed the appeal holding as follows:

Learned Commissioner (DR) submits liberty may kindly be given to point out, upon necessary further verifications, and to seek recall the dismissal of appeal and restoration of the appeal in the case (i) in which it can be demonstrated that the appeals are covered by the exceptions, and (ii) which are inadvertently included in this bunch of appeals, wherein the tax effect, in terms of the CBDT circular (supra), exceeds Rs 50,00,000.

In the circumstances, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon”ble Supreme Court in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax-5,New Delhi Vs. Keshav Power Ltd., referred to supra and in the light of the above discussions, the appeal filed by the Revenue is found to be non-maintainable.

In the circumstances, on both the grounds discussed above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed as defects uncured, and also as non-maintainable as per CBDT circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019.