ITO, NEW DELHI vs. KHOSIA MEDICAL INSTITUTE, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5388/DEL/2010Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 July 2016AY 2003-042 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 dismissed the appeal based on a CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal. The tax effect in this appeal was below the revised limit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the CIT(A) concerning AY 2003-04. The assessee claimed books of accounts were misplaced, and the Revenue questioned this claim and a violation of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 11(5).

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be pressed given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 13(1)(d),Section 11(5),Section 11,Section 12

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘FRIDAY/I-2’ NEW DELHI

Before: SH. H.S. SIDHU & SH. O.P. KANT

For Appellant: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr.DR
Hearing: 01.07.2016Pronounced: 08.07.2016

ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), dated 13.10.2010 in relation to assessment year 2003-04, raising the following grounds of appeal: i. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in accepting the assessee’s claim that books of accounts have been misplaced during the course of transit from one office to another location, however, it is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has not ever specified as to date on which the books of account have been misplaced and which books of accounts/records have been got misplaced. Even during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has failed to furnish such details. ii. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erroneously failed to adjudicate on the issue of violation of sec. 13(1)(d) r.w.s 11(5) of the Act which has resulted in denial of benefits of sec. 11&12. iii. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing.

1.

2. None present on behalf of the assessee. We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the relevant material on record. It is noticed that the CBDT has issued Circular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015 with retrospective effect, revising the monetary limit to Rs.10,00,000/- for not filing appeals before the Tribunal. The ld. Sr. Departmental Representative, although supported the order of the Assessing Officer, but could not controvert the fact that tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/-.

3.

From para 10 of the above Circular, it is palpable that the Instruction is applicable to the pending appeals also with retrospective effect and there is a clear-cut direction to the Department to withdraw or not press such appeals filed before the ITAT, wherein tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-. Going by the prescription of the afore-noted Circular, we are of the view that the Revenue should have either not filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal or withdrawn the same as the tax effect in this appeal is admittedly less than the prescribed limit i.e. Rs. 10,00,000/- for not filing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the instant appeal without going into merits of the case.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. The decision is pronounced in the open court on 8th July, 2016.

More judgments on Section 13(1)(d)

All 306 judgments and leading authorities on Section 13(1)(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →