What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT. The Tribunal noted that the CBDT instructions are binding and the Revenue should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) concerning royalty expenses. The assessee did not appear for the hearing as the notice was returned with an incomplete address. The tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit by the CBDT.

ACIT vs M/S. G4S Security Systems (India)… | ITAT Delhi 2017

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI L.P. SAHU

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU, JM

The Department has filed this Appeal which is emanate from the Order dated 30.5.2014 of Ld. CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. The grounds raised

in the revenue’s appeal reads as under:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,13,208/- made by the AO on account of royalty expenses.

2. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above

2. In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post at the address mentioned in Col. No. 11 of Form No. 36, which was returned back with the remarks “INCOMPLETE ADDRESS” and no new address has been furnished in the Registry records by the Assesee. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee on the same address, therefore, we are deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.

3. During the hearing, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO.

We have heard Ld. DR and perused the records. After perusing the records, we find that tax effect in the Revenue’s appeal is below the limit of Rs. 10 lacs, as fixed by the CBDT and, therefore, 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 (in S No Appeals in Income-tax matters 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.” 5. 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. Keeping in view the CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015, 6. 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. 7. In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12/10/2017.

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. G4S SECURITY SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., GURGAON

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments