Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. N. K. Saini
This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 04.07.2014 of Ld. CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi. The only ground has been raised in this appeal reads as under : “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 45,80,488/- made by the AO ignoring the fact that the provision was created to meet unascertained liability and hence required to be added back while calculating Book Profit.”
During the course of hearing, the Learned counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the rate of tax for the assessment year under consideration on the profit u/s 115JB of Income Tax Act, 1961( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was 15%, therefore, tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs. 10,00,000/- and the department ought not to have filed the appeal in view of the CBDT Circular no. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015.
3. On the other hand, the ld. D.R., although supported the order of the Assessing Officer, but could not controvert this fact that tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/-.
After considering the submissions of both the parties and the material available on record, it is noticed that Section 268A has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 01/04/99. The said section 268 of the Act provides that the Board may issue instruction or directions to the other income-tax authorities fixing monetary limits for not filing the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal or the Courts, said instructions/directions are binding on the income tax authorities.
It is noticed that the CBDT has issued Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015, vide which it has revised the monetary limit to Rs.10,00,000/- for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the said circular reads as under: “…………………….. ……………………...
Henceforth, appeals/ SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:
S. No Appeals in Income-tax matter Monetary Limit (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.
………………………… …………………………
9. The monetary limits specified in para 3 above shall not apply to writ matters and direct tax matters other than Income tax. Filing of appeals in other Direct tax matters shall continue to be governed by relevant provisions of statute & rules. Further, filing of appeal in cases of Income Tax, where the tax effect is not quantifiable or not involved, such as the case of 4 Promed Exports Pvt. Ltd. registration of trusts or institutions under section 12A of the IT Act, 1961, shall not be governed by the limits specified in para 3 above and decision to file appeal in such cases may be taken on merits of a particular case.
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.”
From Clause 10 of the above said circular it is clear that these instructions are applicable to the pending appeals also and as per clause 3, there is clear cut instruction to the department to withdraw or not to press the appeals filed before the ITAT wherein tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-. These instructions are operative retrospectively to the pending appeals.
Keeping in view the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015 and also the provisions of Section 268A of Income Tax Act, 1961, I am of the view that the Revenue should not have filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal.
In view of the above, without going into merits of the case, I dismiss the appeal filed by the department.
In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 27/06/2016)