What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable because the tax effect was less than Rs. 10,00,000/-, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.

The Department appealed an order by the CIT(A) that deleted an addition of Rs. 16,98,503/-. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal was decided ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the Department's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal in light of the CBDT's monetary limits for filing appeals. The applicability of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 to pending appeals.

DCIT vs M/S Cascade Enterprises | ITAT Delhi 2016

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Respondent: DR Assessee by :

Date of Hearing : 22-08-2016 Date of Order : 02-09-2016

O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 14.10.2015 of Ld. CIT(A)-32, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-

1. Whether Ld. CIT(A) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case erred in not appreciating the facts of the case properly.

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 16,98,503/- (Maintenance charges, electricity charges, interest on borrowed capital, property tax and ground rent) on the ground that it was commercial property ignoring the Page 1 of 3

Inspector’s Report stating that the property was never used for business purpose?

In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post, in spite of the same, assessee, nor his authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, I am deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.

From the above, I find that the tax effect in the Revenue’s Appeal 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.”

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.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S CASCADE ENTERPRISES, DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Latest GST High Court judgments