ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SONYA SINGH, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1032/DEL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 June 2016AY 2005-062 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 without going into the merits of the case. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 10,00,000/-, with retrospective effect.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer concerning marketing expenses, business promotion, travel expenses, advertisement expenses, and furniture & fixtures. The tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 10,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue should be dismissed due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI

Before: SH. I.C. SUDHIR & SH. O.P. KANT

For Appellant: Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Smt. Anju Jai Singh, CA
Hearing: 19.04.2016Pronounced: 08.06.2016

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 16.01.2008 in relation to assessment year 2005-06, raising the following grounds of appeal:

1.

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,42,000/- made by the A.O. on account of marketing expenses paid to Mrs. Monya Singly.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,66,517/- made by the A.O. on account of business promotion

3. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 4,47,094/- & Rs. 2,76,185/- made by the QAO out of foreign travelling expenses & local travel expenses.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,552/- made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of advertisement expenses in contravention to rule 46A.

5. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,79,901/- made by the A.O. out of expenses incurred on furniture & fixtures. The Appellant craves the right to add any other ground of appeal.

2 AY: 2005-06 2. We have heard both the parties 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. However, the Department is at liberty to file the Miscellaneous Application, if the tax effect is more than the prescribed limited of Rs. 10 lacs or otherwise.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →