Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI O.P. KANT
This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 07.3.2011 of Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad pertaining to assessment year 2000-01 on the following grounds:- 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in annulling the assessment framed by the AO, on the grounds that notice u/s 148 was not served upon the assessee in view of the facts that this was not a pending Issue for decision as the same was considered by the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the original appeal.
2. On the facts a d in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in annulling the assessment framed by the AO, by ignoring the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Jai Prakash Singh reported in 219 ITR 737 (SC) wherein it is held that;
"an omission to serve or any defect in the service of notices provided by procedural provisions does not efface or erase the liability to pay tax where such liability is created by distinct substantive provisions [charging sections]. Any such omission or defect may render the order made irregular, depending upon the nature of the provision not complied with but certainly not void or illegal."
3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of 6,04,124/- [Rs.6,36,491/- minus Rs. 32,367/-], made by AO on account of interest on enhanced compensation, by ignoring the facts that the interest ordered by the Court on enhanced compensation from the date of taking over the possession of the land to the date of payment or deposit of the enhanced compensation is in the nature of compensation, which as per findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC) is to be taxed in the year of receipt. 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing the deduction to the assessee under section 54B and 54EA of the act by ignoring the facts that the investment in purchase of agricultural land was made in the joint names and not in the individual name of the assessee and further the investment was not made within the stipulated period from the date of actual of capital gain and receipt of compensation." 5. "That the appellant craves for the permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal."
We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. From the above, we find that the tax effect in the Revenue’s Appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, therefore, the Department’s Appeal is not maintainable, in view of the Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 issued vide F.No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt.) by the CBDT. For the sake of convenience, the relevant para nos. 3 & 10 of the aforesaid CBDT’s Circular are reproduced as under:- “3. Henceforth, appeals/ SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder: Monetary Limit S No Appeals in Income-tax matters (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.
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.”
It is not in dispute that the Board’s instruction or directions issued to the income-tax authorities are binding on those authorities, therefore, the Department should have withdrawn/ not pressed the present Appeal, in view of the aforesaid instructions since the tax effect in the instant Appeal is less than the amount of Rs. 10 lacs, prescribed in the above said CBDT’s Instructions.
Keeping in view the CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015, we are of the view that the Revenue should have withdrawn/ not pressed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. We are also of the view that the said Instructions are applicable for the pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in Tribunal. Accordingly, the Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed.
In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 01/06/2016.