Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI J.S. REDDY
This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 09.3.2011 of Ld. CIT(A)-Faridabad pertaining to assessment year 2002-03 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law, in deleting the addition of Rs.12,49,880/- which was made by the AO on alc of interest received by the assessee on enhanced compensation which is taxable in the year of receipt. As per rationale laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of CIT vs Ghanshyam HUF (315 ITR 1), the interest on enhanced compensation falls under section 28 of LA Act and is taxable in the year of receipt."
2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and in law, in observing that the interest received by the assessee falls under section 34 of LA Act. This observation of the Ld.
CIT(A) is based on wrong footing/facts and is contrary to the facts on record such as;
(i) That the interest has been awarded under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, while deciding Reference Petitions by the Court.
(ii) That as evident from the statement of enhanced compensation which is base of the Ld. CIT(A)'s observation, the original award/LAC rate was Rs.2.35 lakh per acre and the enhanced compensation (as per court decision) has been calculated @ Rs.9.24 lakh (approx.) per acre.
(iii) That this conclusion finds further support. from the facts that while calculating the enhanced compensation, the amount paid as per original award/compensation have been deducted which means that the original award/compensation stands already paid.
(iv) that in nutshell, the interest calculated in LAO's statement (the part of which was received by the assessee during the relevant period) is interest payment under section 28 of the LA Act and is taxable in the year of receipt."
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing the deduction u/s. 54B first time in appeal which was not claimed by the assessee in assessment. As rational laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 the claim of deduction u/s. 54B, which is made by the assessee first time in appeal, without filing any revised return before the AO, is not admissible at all.
That the appellant craves for the permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Computation of Tax Effect in the case of the assessee and stated that the tax involved in the present appeal is Rs. 7,51,152/- which is below the taxable limit of Rs. 10 lacs, as prescribed by the CBDT in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by the Department. Hence, he requested that the Appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed on this account.
Ld. DR did not controvert the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee, but she relied upon the order of the AO. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, we find force in the assessee’s counsel contention 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. 7. In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05/05/2016.