JCIT (OSD), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. STANLEY ELECTRIC ENGG. INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5656/DEL/2011Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 July 2018AY 2003-044 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 Department's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal noted that pending appeals below the specified tax limits should be withdrawn or not pressed.

What were the facts?

The Department filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2003-04. The tax effect involved in the appeal was Rs. 5,42,532/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the Department's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal when the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. Applicability of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 to pending appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU, JM

1.

The Department has filed this Appeal which is emanate from the Order dated 27.8.2011 of Ld. CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2003-04. The grounds raised

in the revenue’s appeal read as under:-

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case in quashing the assessment proceedings u/s. 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act initiated by the AO.

2. The appellant craves to amend modify, alter, add or forego any ground of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.

2.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Chart showing the tax effect including surcharge of Rs. 5,42,532/- involved in this appeal, which is less than the prescribed limit of Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, in our opinion, the Department’s Appeal is not maintainable, in view of the Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 issued vide F.No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt.) by the CBDT. For the sake of convenience, the relevant para nos. 3 & 10 of the aforesaid CBDT’s Circular are reproduced as under:-

“3. Henceforth, appeals/ SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder: Monetary Limit S No Appeals in Income-tax matters (in Rs) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- 2 Before High Court 20,00,000/- 3 Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/-

It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.

10.

This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/ Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/ not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”

3.

It is not in dispute that the Board’s instruction or directions issued to the income-tax authorities are binding on those authorities, therefore, the Department should have withdrawn/ not pressed the present Appeal, in view of the aforesaid instructions since the tax effect in the instant Appeal is less than the amount of Rs. 10 lacs, prescribed in the above said CBDT’s Instructions.

4.

Keeping in view the CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015, we are of the view that the Revenue should have withdrawn/ not pressed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. We are also of the view that the said Instructions are applicable for the pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in Tribunal. Accordingly, the Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →