ITO, WARD-27(2), HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. SHRI MAHADEV JANA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 157/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 November 2016AY 2008-20092 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it held that the appeal deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue's appeal was filed one day late. The quantum of addition was Rs. 22,69,552/- with a tax effect of Rs. 7,71,421/-, which was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 for preferring appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed on grounds of low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, despite the delay in filing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri M. Balaganesh, AM & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM]

Hearing: 25.11.2016Pronounced: 25.11.2016

ORDER

Per Shri M. Balaganesh, AM:

1.

This appeal by revenue is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XXXIII, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 191/CIT(A)-XXXIII/ITO Ward 2/Haldia/10-11 dated 13.11.2014. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward-2, Haldia u/s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2008-09 vide his order dated 28.12.2010.

2.

Revenue appeal is time barred by one day. An application for condonation of delay dated 10.03.2015 has been filed by the revenue explaining the reason for delay. Ld. AR has got no objection for condoning the delay. In view of the concession given by the ld. AR, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

3.

At the outset, it is seen that the quantum involved in this case is Rs.22,69,552/-and tax effect on the disputed addition before us is Rs.7,71,421/-, which is less than Rs. 10 lacs.

4.

After perusing the materials available on record, we find that the additions disputed before us is below the tax effect limit prescribed by CBDT vide Circular No. 21 / 2015 dated 10.12.2015 for preferring appeals before tribunal by the revenue. On perusal of the Circular No. 21 / 2015 dated 10.12.2015 and the materials available on record, Ld. DR could not point out whether this case falls under any of the exception as provided in the circular despite specific opportunity was given, does not fall under any of the exceptions contemplated in the said Circular, as this is covered. We also find that the Circular makes it very clear that the revised monetary limits shall apply retrospectively to pending appeals also. We find that the Circular is binding on the tax authorities. This position has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd reported in 267 ITR 272

2 Shri Mahadev Jana. AY 2008-09 (SC). Hence, we hold that the appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed in terms of low tax effect vide Circular No.21 / 2015 dated 10.12.2015. Accordingly, this being a low tax effect case, we dismiss this appeal of revenue in limine, as unadmitted, without going into the merits of the case.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →