ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. VECO CANADA LTD., DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1139/DEL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 June 2016AY 2005-064 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 due to the low tax effect, citing 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 The Tribunal noted that pending appeals below the specified tax limits should be withdrawn or not pressed.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 the assessee's liability to pay advance tax and interest under Section 234B. The tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was less than Rs. 10,00,000.

What were the issues?

Whether the Department's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circular. Whether the assessee was liable for advance tax and interest under Section 234B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234B,Section 210

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

This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 16.12.2011 of Ld. CIT(A)-II, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2005-06 on the following grounds:-

1. Whether the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)

has erred in holding that the assessee was not liable to pay

Advance Tax in terms of provisions of Part C of Chapter XVII of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)

has erred in holding that the assessee was not liable to pay interest under section 234B despite the fact that chargeablity of the interest is mandatory for not complying with the provisions of section 210. 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the interest charged under section 234B by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High

Court in the case of Maerks Co. Ltd. despite the fact that the department has not accepted this finding in other cases involving similar issues and has filed SLP before Apex Court in the case of Jacobs Civil Incorporated, Mitsubishi and others

(Delhi.)

4. The appellant prays for leave to add, amend, modify or alter

any grounds of appeal at the time of before the hearing of the appeal.”

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 234B

All 10,214 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →