Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN
आदेश / O R D E R
PER BENCH:
These two appeals filed by the Revenue are against the common order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai in & 45/2015-16/CIT(A)-3, Chennai dated 30.09.2016 for assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11 and &3420/Chny/2016 :- 2 -: C.O.Nos.54&55/Chny/2017 correspondingly, the assessee filed Cross Objections challenging the reopening of assessments are against the order of ld.CIT(A), dated 30.09.2016.
Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan represented on behalf of the Revenue 2. and Mr.N.Vijay Kumar represented on behalf of the Assessee.
Since both the appeals and the Cross objections are 3. interlinked relating to the same assessee for the same assessment years, these Appeals and Cross Objections are disposed of by this common order.
On perusing the appeal of Revenue in , we find that the AO had filed the appeal with delay of 4 days.
The learned AO has submitted a Petition dated 07.03.2017 seeking condonation of delay, and the AO stated in this petition that the delay of 04 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal is on account of getting papers from other office and as soon as he received the records, he filed the appeal on 20.12.2016. In our opinion, the reasons explained by the AO for filing the appeal belatedly is bonafide.
Accordingly, the delay is condoned. &3420/Chny/2016 :- 3 -: C.O.Nos.54&55/Chny/2017 4.1 Both the Cross objections filed by the assessee are delayed by 51 days for which the assessee had filed affidavits for condonation of delay of 51 days stating that the said delay in filing the C.O is neither willful nor deliberate but due to get the consent delayed from its Counsel Shri T.Banusekar C.A for filing C.O., who was not in City and also the circumstances beyond the control of Petitioner herein. After considering the same, we are satisfied about the reasons advanced by the ld.A.R for delay of 51 days in filing both the C.Os. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
When the appeals of Revenue are taken up for hearing, the representative of the Revenue and the Counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that the tax effect involved in these appeals of Revenue is less than `20 lakhs. It was a submission that the CBDT in its latest Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 instructed its officers to withdraw all the appeals pending before the ITAT where the tax effect is less than`20 lakhs. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that this Circular of CBDT is binding on the officers of the Department.
Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed further in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
In respect of the two Cross-Objections filed by the assesse, the ld.AR did not wish to press the same. &3420/Chny/2016 :- 4 -: C.O.Nos.54&55/Chny/2017 Consequently, the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross-Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05th November, 2018, at Chennai.