ACIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. M/S. TIKAULA SUGAR MILLS LTD., MUZAFFARNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 669/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 June 2018AY 2011-123 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 CBDT circulars are binding on departmental officers. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed in limine without going into the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals before the ITAT where the tax effect on the disputed income was less than Rs. 10 lacs. The CBDT circular No. 21/2015 directed that no appeal should be filed or pressed if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 10 lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed based on CBDT circulars limiting appeals with a low tax effect. Whether CBDT circulars are binding on departmental officers.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

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 “D” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.D.R
For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv

O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.:

Both the appeals as well as the cross objections have been filed against the order of the CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar dated 17.11.2014.

2 ITAs No.668 & 669/Del/2015 & COs No.253/Del/15 & 47/Del/18

2.

So far the appeals filed by the Revenue are concerned; it is noted that in these cases the tax effect on the income under dispute are less than Rs.10 lacs. The Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 file no.279 of Misc. 142/2007 – ITJ (PT) has issued the direction in suppression of the Instruction No.5/2014 dated 10.07.2014 in pursuance with the power interested u/s.268A of the Income Tax Act that no appeal should be filed before this Tribunal in case tax effect does not exceed Rs.10 lac. The “tax effect” in this regard means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that what have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of issues against which appeal is intended to be filed. This circular further states that tax will not include any interest thereon the chargeability of interest itself is in dispute. We further noted that under paragraph 10 which is reproduced as under, it has been mentioned in the circular that this instruction will apply even to the pending appeals. “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 ITAs No.668 & 669/Del/2015 & COs No.253/Del/15 & 47/Del/18

3.

In the impugned cases, we noted that the tax effect on the issues under dispute does not exceed Rs.10 lac. In view of this fact as per the instruction, the Revenue is not supposed to press the appeals. We, therefore, dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue in limine without going into the merits of the case as in my opinion the circular issued by CBDT are binding on the departmental officers in view of the provision of Section 268A(1) of the Act. The said view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Navneet Lal Zaveri Vs. AAC 56 ITR 198 (SC). We accordingly dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue.

4.

Since, we have already dismissed the appeals of the Revenue in view of Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015. The Cross Objections filed by the assessee were supportive to the order of the CIT(A), therefore, they become infructuous. We dismiss the same as infructuous.

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →