ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JBM AUTO LIMITED, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3616/DEL/2011Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 June 2016AY 2008-094 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 held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable because the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal noted that pending appeals below the specified tax limits should be withdrawn or not pressed.

What were the facts?

The Department appealed an order from the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2008-09. The appeal raised grounds related to disallowances under Section 14A, excess depreciation claims, and inclusion of disallowances in book profit.

What were the issues?

Whether the Department's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI O.P. KANT

Order : 01-06-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 09.5.2011 of Ld. CIT(A)-VII, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds:-

The order of the Learned CIT(A) is erroneous & contrary to 1. facts and Law.

1.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in restricting the addition u/s 14A of the I. T. Act to Rs. 1,30,107/- as against Rs.9,1 4,838/- made by the AO. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the finding recorded by the AO and the fact that the addition was correctly made by the AO in accordance with the provisions of Rule 80 of I.T. Rules.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,42,622/- being the excess depreciation claimed on computer peripherals.

3.1. The Ld. CIT (A) ignored the findings recorded by the AO and the fact that the depreciation on computer peripherals is allowable @ 15% and not @ 60% as claimed by the assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in directing the AO not to include the disallowances made u/s 143(30 in the book profit of the assessee.

4.1. The CIT (A) ignored the findings recorded by the AO and the fact that the assessee deflated its profit by claiming non allowable expenses. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, or amend any grounds of the appeal raised above at the time of hearing.”

2.

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.

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.”

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 01/06/2016.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →