ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JDS APPARELS LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1712/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 February 20174 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 appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeals.

What were the facts?

The Department appealed against the deletion of defaults related to gateway payment charges and provisions made in the books of account. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the Department's appeals are maintainable given the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. Whether TDS was leviable on gateway payment charges and provisions made in the books of account.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

These appeals filed by the Department are directed against the separate Orders both dated 05.1.2015 of Ld. CIT(A)-13, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 & 2011-12.

2.

The grounds raised in (AY 2010-11) read as under:- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the default u/s. 201(1) on account of gateway payment charges without taking into account CBDT’s notification no. 56/2012 dated 1.1.2013 wherein TDS on gateway charges was dispensed with w.e.f. 1.1.2013. ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the default on account of provision made in the books of account because TDS has to be made on payment or credit whichever is earlier. iii) Without prejudice to the above whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the interest charges u/s. 201(1A) consequent to the above two defaults u/s. 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. iv) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

3.

The grounds raised in (AY 2011-12) read as under:- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the default u/s. 201(1) on account of gateway payment charges without taking into account CBDT’s notification no. 56/2012 dated 1.1.2013 wherein TDS on gateway charges was dispensed with w.e.f. 1.1.2013. ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the default on account of provision made in the books of account because TDS has to be made on payment or credit whichever is earlier. iii) Without prejudice to the above whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the interest charges u/s. 201(1A) consequent to the above two defaults u/s. 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. iv) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

4.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that the tax effect in the present appeals are below prescribed limit of Rs.10 lacs, hence, he requested that the Appeals of the Revenue may be dismissed. 4.1 However, the Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

5. I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. I note that the tax effect in this case is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, 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 S No Appeals in Income-tax matters (in 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 Appeals, in view of the aforesaid instructions since the tax effect in the instant Appeals is less than the amount of Rs. 10 lacs, prescribed in the above said CBDT’s Instructions.

6.

Keeping in view the CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015, I am of the view that the Revenue should have withdrawn/ not pressed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. I am also of the view that the said Instructions are applicable for the pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in Tribunal. 7. In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →