ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SHRIM INVESTMENT SOLUTION (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5254/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2016AY 2009-106 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The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, noting it was covered by a CBDT circular regarding low tax effect. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were rendered infructuous and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order. The Revenue's counsel sought an adjournment and later submitted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by a CBDT circular. The Revenue stated the appeal was withdrawn.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal, having a low tax effect below the specified monetary limit, should be withdrawn or dismissed based on CBDT circulars.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI L. P. SAHU & SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLEShrim Investment Solution (P)

For Appellant: Smt. Anima Barnwal, SR
Hearing: 19.05.2016Pronounced: 19.05.2016

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 5254/Del/2013
C.O No.26 /Del/2014
ITA No. 5262/Del/2013

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

These appeals are filed by the revenue against the order dated 09/07/2013 passed by CIT (A)-1, New Delhi. The assessee’s are filed cross objections.

2.

The Ld. DR submitted adjournment application but when pointed out that it is low tax effect submitted further that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than 10,00,000/-.

3. CBDT Circular No. F. No. 279/ Misc.142/207 ITJ(Pt) dated 10th December, 2015, in Para 3, 7 and 10 reads as under:

3.

Henceforth, appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder: S No. Appeals in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- 2 Before High Court 20,00,000/- 3 Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/-

……… 7. In the past, a number of instances have come to the notice of the Board, whereby an assessee has claimed relief from the Tribunal or the Court only on the ground that the Department has implicitly accepted the decision of the Tribunal or Court in the case of the assessee for any other assessment year or in the case of any other assessee for the same or any other assessment year, by not filing an appeal on the same disputed issues. The Departmental representative/counsels must make every effort to bring to the notice of the Tribunal or the Court that the appeal in such cases was not filed or not admitted only for the reason of the tax effect being less that the specified monetary limit and, therefore, no inference should be drawn that the decisions rendered therein were acceptable to the Department. Accordingly, they should impress upon the Tribunal or the Court that such cases do not have any precedent value. a the evidence of not filing appeal due to this instruction may have to be produced in courts, the judicial folders in the office of CsIT must be maintained in a systemic manner for easy retrieval.

…….

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.”

4.

Thus, this being a pending appeal is covered by the CBDT Circular No. F. No. 279/ Misc.142/207 ITJ(Pt) dated 10th December, 2015. The Ld. DR submitted that this appeal is withdrawn. He however, submitted that this should not be taken as precedence.

5.

Considering the submissions of both the parties, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as withdrawn by the Revenue. However, this withdrawal of Revenue’s appeal will not hold as precedence in subsequent proceedings. In light of this the cross objection becomes infructuous and stands dismissed.

6.

In result, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn by the Revenue and cross objections are dismissed as the same is infructous.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th May, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →