DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INVESTMENT INDIA LTD., LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 681/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 September 2018AY 1993-942 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 acknowledged that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of a penalty. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT circulars.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect is below the threshold stipulated by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Verma, Adv, Shri Hardeep Singh, CA
For Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr.DR, Shri Dinesh Verma, Adv, Shri Hardeep Singh, CA

Department by : Shri Raghunath, Sr.DR Assessee by : Shri Dinesh Verma, Adv., Shri Hardeep Singh, CA : 18-09-2018 Date of hearing Date of pronouncement : 18-09-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM :

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 05.11.2012 of the CIT(A)- 1, New Delhi relating to assessment year 1993-94. 2. Deletion of penalty of Rs.12,58,920/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is the only issue raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal

3. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the tax effect involved in the grounds raised by the Revenue is below Rs.20 lakhs. Therefore, in view of the latest CBDT Circular No.03/2018 [F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt)] dated 11th July, 2018 which is applicable even to pending appeals, the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable.

4. The ld. DR on the other hand fairly admitted that the tax effect involved in the impugned appeal is less than Rs.20 lakhs and therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue has to be dismissed. He, however, requested that if at any point of time it is noticed that the case of the Revenue falls under any of the amended para 10 of the Circular vide Notification dated 20.08.2018, the Revenue should be allowed to file Miscellaneous Application for revival of the appeal.

5. After hearing both the sides, we find the tax effect involved in the grounds raised by the Revenue in the impugned appeal is admittedly below Rs.20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable in view of the CBDT Circular No.03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 which is applicable even to pending appeals. However, if the Revenue at any point of time finds that the case of the Revenue falls under any of the clauses as per amended para 10 of the said Circular vide Notification dated 20.08.2018, the Revenue is at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application for revival of the appeal.

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed in the terms indicated above. Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on this 18th day of September, 2018.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →