Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI P.K. BANSAL & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
PER AMARJIT SINGH, J.M.
The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned
order dated 17th March 2012, passed by the learned Commissioner
(Appeals)–II, Nagpur, for the assessment year 2005–06. The ground
raised by the Revenue is reproduced below:–
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that substantial portion of the loans had been received in prior year, while at the same time acknowledging that vital details and documents, in respect of such loans, were not filed, either before the Assessing Officer or during the appellate proceedings.”
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
2 Shri S. Ramalingam 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 Income Tax Act, 1961, 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 paragraph 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 Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/not pressed.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 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 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
3 Shri S. Ramalingam 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 stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.06.2017
Sd/- Sd/- P.K. BANSAL AMARJIT SINGH VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
NAGPUR, DATED: 21.06.2017
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
4 Shri S. Ramalingam
Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on 21.06.2017 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 21.06.2017 Sr.PS Draft proposed & placed 3. before the second – – JM/AM member Draft discussed/approved 4. – – JM/AM by Second Member Approved Draft comes to 5. Sr.PS 21.06.2017 the Sr.PS/PS 6. Date of pronouncement 21.06.2017 Sr.PS File sent to the Bench 7. 21.06.2017 Sr.PS Clerk Date on which file goes to 8. the Head Clerk 9. Date of dispatch of Order