DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI vs. SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2600/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 July 2018AY 2014-153 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 of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as it fell within the ambit of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular's monetary limits were applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue challenged the deletion of a penalty imposed under Section 271AAB(c) by the CIT(A). The disputed addition before the Tribunal had a tax effect below the threshold prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, despite the merits of the penalty deletion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAB(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, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI K.N. CHARY

For Appellant: CA Sh. Ashish Goel, CA
For Respondent: DR Assessee by Sh. Ved Jain, CA
Hearing: 06.07.2018Pronounced: 06.07.2018

ORDER PER K. NARSIMHA CHARY, J.M.

In this appeal revenue challenged the order dated 31/01/2018 passed in appeal numbers 116 and 118/2017-18 by the Learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals)-24, New Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) deleting the penalty of Rs. 9,71,573/- imposed by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 271 AAB (c) of the Act.

2.

At the outset, learned AR brought to our notice that the quantum involved in this case is Rs. 9,71,573/-and tax effect on the disputed addition before us is less than Rs. 10 lacs squarely falling with the ambit of Circular No. 21 / 2015 dated 10.12.2015 prescribing the tax effect for preferring appeals before tribunal by the revenue. . 1

3.

After perusing the materials available on record, we find that the additions disputed before us is below the tax effect limit prescribed by CBDT vide Circular No. 21 / 2015 dated 10.12.2015 for preferring appeals before tribunal by the revenue. On perusal of the Circular No. 21 / 2015 dated 10.12.2015 and the materials available on record, Ld. DR could not point out whether this case falls under any of the exception as provided in the circular despite specific opportunity was given, does not fall under any of the exceptions contemplated in the said Circular, as this is covered. We also find that the Circular makes it very clear that the revised monetary limits shall apply retrospectively to pending appeals also. We find that the Circular is binding on the tax authorities. This position has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd reported in 267 ITR 272 (SC). Hence, we hold that the appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed in terms of low tax effect vide Circular No.21 / 2015 dated 10.12.2015. Accordingly, this being a low tax effect case, we dismiss this appeal of revenue in limine, as unadmitted, without going into the merits of the case.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 06.07.2018

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →