Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’: NEW DELHI
Before: SH. H.S. SIDHU & SH. O.P. KANT
Appellant by Ms. Richa Rastogi, Sr.DR Respondent by Ms. Aditi Gupta, CA Date of hearing 25.04.2016 Date of pronouncement 26.04.2016 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 20.12.2013 in relation to assessment year 2010-11, raising the following grounds of appeal: 1) “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.21,775/- which was made by the Assessing Officer as per provisions of section 14A(3) of the I.T. Act by applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) & 8D(2)(iii) I.T. Rules being expenditure relatable to income not includable in total income.” 2) “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.98,439/- which was made by the AO as per provisions of section 36(l)(iii) of the I.T. Act being interest for the period from the date of payment to the date of assets put to use is to be capitalized.” 3) “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.6,81,405/- which was made by the Assessing Officer as per provisions of section 36(l)(iii) of the I.T. Act being interest on interest free debit balance of its partner in view of the fact that if the assessee had collected the outstanding which were due to it from partner, it would have been able to reduce its indebtedness and thus save a part of the interest.” 4) “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 10,32,884/- which was made by the AO as per provisions of section 36(l)(iii) of the I.T. Act being interest on advance used for non-business purposes in view of the fact that if the assessee had collected the outstanding which were due to it from others, it would have been able to reduce its indebtedness and thus save a part of the interest.” 5) That the appellant craves for the permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.
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/-.
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 26th April, 2016.