Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI P.K. BANSAL & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
PER AMARJIT SINGH, J.M.
The present appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against
the impugned order dated 7th August 2013, passed by the learned
Commissioner (Appeals)–II, Nagpur, for the assessment year 2008–
09, on the following grounds of appeal:–
“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of ` 25,33,989 on account of business income without considering the fact that the assessee is not earning agricultural income from land, also the sole intention fo the assessee is to earn profit on sale of land.
2 M/s. B.K. Construction
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) is correct in not considering that the assessee engaged in purchase and sale of agricultural land situated in commercially viable area and the business of the assessee is purchase and sale of land.”
At the very outset, we noted that in this case the tax effect on
the income under dispute is less than ` 10 lakh. We further noted that
the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th
December, 2015 file no.279 of Misc.142/2007–ITJ(PT) has issued the direction in supersession of the Instruction No.5/2014 dated 10th July
2014 in pursuance with the power interested under section 268A of
the Act that no appeal should be filed before this Tribunal in case tax
effect does not exceed ` 10 lakh. The “tax effect” in this regard means
the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the
tax that what have been chargeable had such total income been
reduced by the amount of income in respect of issues against which
appeal is intended to be filed. This circular further states that tax will
not include any interest thereon the chargeability of interest itself is in
dispute. We further noted that under Para–10 which is reproduced as
under, it has been mentioned in the circular that this instruction will
apply even to the pending appeals.
“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 Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed.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
3 M/s. B.K. Construction
instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”
In the impugned case, we noted that the tax effect on the 3.
issue under dispute does not exceed ` 10 lakh. In view of this fact
as per the instruction, the Revenue is not supposed to press the
appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue in
limine without going into the merits of the case as in our opinion
the circulars issued by CBDT are binding on the Departmental
officers in view of the provision of section 268A(1) of the Act. The
said view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Navneet Lal Zaveri v/s AAC, 56 ITR 198 (SC). We accordingly
dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.06.2017
Sd/- Sd/- P.K. BANSAL AMARJIT SINGH VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
NAGPUR, DATED: 27.06.2017
4 M/s. B.K. Construction
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Nagpur City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; (6) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Nagpur