ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUBHASH CHANDRA SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5397/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2003-043 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 appeal without going into the merits of the case, citing a CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal. The circular directed the Department not to press appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/-.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for wrong claims of prior period, prepaid, and capital expenditure. The tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 10,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue should be dismissed based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for appeals to the Tribunal, when the tax effect is below the prescribed limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. I.C. SUDHIR & SH. O.P. KANT

For Appellant: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal
Hearing: 13.04.2016Pronounced: 27.05.2016

ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) dated 01.07.2013 in relation to assessment year 2003-04, raising the following grounds of appeal:

1.

1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Act imposed on account of wrong claim in respect of the following expenses: Prior Period Expenses : Rs. 8,60,255/- i) ii) Prepaid Expenses : Rs. 7,723/- Expenditure of capital nature : Rs. 4,69,744/- ii)

2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Act imposed on account of wrong claim ignoring the fact that the addition in respect of the above cited expenses were confirmed by the appellate authorities.

3. Tire Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the above penalty without appreciating the fact that the truth of wrong claim came to the knowledge of the assessing officer only during the assessment proceedings and taxes on the same would have been evaded had the assessment proceedings not been initiated in this case.

4.

The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal.

2.

We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant material on record. It is noticed that the CBDT has issued Circular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015 with retrospective effect, revising the monetary limit to Rs.10,00,000/- for not filing appeals before the Tribunal. The ld. Sr. Departmental Representative, although supported the order of the Assessing Officer, but could not controvert the fact that tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/-.

3.

From para 10 of the above Circular, it is palpable that the Instruction is applicable to the pending appeals also with retrospective effect and there is a clear-cut direction to the Department to withdraw or not press such appeals filed before the ITAT, wherein tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-. Going by the prescription of the afore-noted Circular, we are of the view that the Revenue should have either not filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal or withdrawn the same as the tax effect in this appeal is admittedly less than the prescribed limit i.e. Rs. 10,00,000/- for not filing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the instant appeal without going into merits of the case. However, the Department is at liberty to file the Miscellaneous Application, if the tax effect is more than the prescribed limited of Rs. 10 lacs or otherwise. 4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.

The decision is pronounced in the open court on 27th May, 2016.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →