DCIT CIR 2, KALYAN vs. VINOD NARAINDAS KISHNANI, ULHASNAGAR

Aforesaid appeals by revenue for Assessment Years [AY] 2009-10 & 2012-13 contest separate orders of Ld. first appellate authority. None has appeared for assessee and therefore, left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the appeals on the basis of material available on record and after hearing Ld. Departmental Representative.

For AY 2009-10, the revenue is against the order of Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the additions of Rs.34.13 Lacs on account of sales promotion expenses as made by Ld. AO u/s. 143(3) on 27/06/2014. 3. For AY 2012-13, the revenue is against the order of Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the additions of Rs.32.76 Lacs on account of sales promotion expenses as made by Ld. AO u/s. 143(3) on 31/03/2015. 4. At the outset, it is noted that tax effect of the quantum additions as contested by the revenue in each year is less than prescribed limit of Rs.20 Lacs and the same is covered by recently issued low tax effect Circular No.03/2018 dated 11/07/2018 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes [CBDT]. The Ld. DR, Ms. Pooja Swaroop has controverted the same by submitting that necessary instructions / certificate, in this regard, would be required from higher authorities. 5. We have gone through the circular and find that the tax effect of quantum in dispute is below prescribed limit of Rs.20 Lacs and the assessee stood benefitted by the above circular issued by CBDT wherein the minimum monetary limit for filing the appeals before various appellate authorities have been fixed as under:- & 6228/Mum/2016 Vinod Naraindas Kishnani Assessment Years-2009-10 & 2012-13 S. No. Appeals/ SLPs in Income-tax Monetary Limit (Rs.) matters 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 20.00,000 2 Before High Court 50.00,000 3 Before Supreme Court 1,00.00,000 The aforesaid limits, as per para 13 of the circular applies to pending appeals also. In view of the admitted position, we dismiss the revenue’s appeal. 6. So far as the contentions raised by Ld. DR is concerned, we find that aforesaid circular does not envisage obtaining of any certificate from any authorities, in any manner. Nevertheless, the revenue is free to move appropriate application to recall this order, if at a later stage, it is found that the matter is covered by any exceptions provided in the aforesaid circular. 7. Resultantly, both the appeals filed by the revenue stand dismissed.