Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश / O R D E R
Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:-
These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, 272/15-16 passed U/s.143(3) & 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has also raised cross objections in CO No.196 and CO.197 against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in for not granting set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment year 2009-10 and in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in ITA No.272/15-16 for deleting the penalty respectively.
There is a delay of 02 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue. The Ld.ITO has furnished an affidavit before us stating that the delay had occurred due to the lapse of time during transit of files and due to intervening holidays. It was therefore pleaded that the short delay in filing the appeals may be condoned. The Ld.AR objected to the submission of the Ld.DR. However, after hearing both sides, though we do not appreciate the lethargic attitude of the Revenue, in the interest of justice we are of the considered view that the short delay in filing the appeals is required to be condoned. Accordingly we hereby condone the delay of 02 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue and proceed to hear the case on merits.
Revenue’s Appeal in of 2016
At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted before us that the above mentioned appeal is not maintainable due to the latest Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the CBDT with respect to monetary limit. Hence, it was pleaded that the appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed. The Ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the Ld.AR.
After hearing both sides we find merit in the submission of the Ld.AR. The CBDT has directed the Revenue not to file appeal before the Tribunal where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.20 lakhs. In the above mentioned appeal of the assessee the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs and the same is not in dispute.
Therefore, we hereby dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable.
Assessee’s Cross Objection in CO No.196 of 2016:
The assessee has raised the ground that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld.AO who had not allowed to set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.12,98,769/- of assessment year 2009-10.
5.1 The Ld.AR did not argue the ground raised by the assessee in its cross objection. Therefore we are of the view that the Ld.AR has not pressed the ground raised in the cross objection.
Hence we do not find it necessary to entertain the ground raised by the assessee in its cross objection.
Revenue’s Appeal in of 2016:-
Since we have dismissed the quantum appeal filed by the Revenue herein above, the appeal raised by the Revenue with respect to levy of penalty U/s.271(1)(c) of the Act does not have any legs to stand. Therefore the appeal of the Revenue does not survive.
Assessee’s Cross Objection in CO No. 197 of 2016:-
The cross objection filed by the assessee is in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in IT Appeal No.272/15-16 for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied by the Ld.AO invoking the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further we have held herein above with respect to levy of penalty that the appeal does not survive as it
5 & 2817/Chny/2016 & CO Nos. 196 & 197/Chny/2016 does not have any legs to stand, therefore the cross objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous.
In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee in CO No.196 of 2016 is dismissed as “not pressed” and CO No.197 of 2016 is dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 15th November, 2018 at Chennai.