ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LANDBASE INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3872/DEL/2011Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2016AY 2008-093 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, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Department appealed the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made on account of depreciation on a golf course, disallowance under Section 14A, and depreciation on computer peripherals. The tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit set by CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

Whether the Department's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI J.S. REDDY

For Appellant: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 27.6.2011 of Ld. CIT(A)-VII, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds:- “

1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and contrary to facts and law.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 27,68,316/- made on account of depreciation on Golf Course. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the finding recorded by the AO and the fact that the Golf Course is a piece of land and cost of development is to be added in the cost of land and is not a depreciable asset.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 27,299/- made u/s. 14A of the Act. 3.1 The ld. CIT(A) ignored the finding recorded by the AO and the fact that the disallowance was correctly worked out by AO in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8D of the I.T. rules.

4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 91,060/- made on account of deprecation on computer peripherals. 5. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing.

2.

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 02/05/2016.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →