DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN FERTILIZER CORPORATION LTD., NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 231/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 October 2017AY 2008-093 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 Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT. The circulars are binding on the tax authorities.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the CIT(A) that deleted a penalty. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for appeals. The Tribunal considered CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

ORDER

PER H.S. SIDHU, JM

1.

The Department has filed this Appeal which is emanate from the Order dated 20.10.2016 of Ld. CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. The grounds raised

in the revenue’s appeal reads as under:- i) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 8,78,302/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) ignoring the fact that ITAT has confirmed 4/5th of disallowance on account of VSS expenditure by holding provision of section 35DDA in the assessee own case. ii) The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.

3. During the hearing, A.R. of the assessee has stated that the tax effect in this case is below the prescribed limit, hence, he requested that the appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed.

4. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO.

5. We have heard both the parties 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.” 6. 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, 7. 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.

8.

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04/10/2017.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →