Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI J.S. REDDY & SHRI LALIET KUMAR
Both these appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against separate orders of the ld. CIT(A) pertaining to different assessees and assessment years. Cross objections have also been filed by the assessee in case of Pradeep Aggarwal. Since the issues involved in these appeals are similar and the appeals and cross objection were heard together, so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
These appeals and cross objection have been fixed for hearing in view of the recent CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, revising the monetary limit of Rs.10.00 lakhs for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal in terms of section 268A(1) of the Income-tax Act.
The CBDT in its recent Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 has provided that no departmental appeal shall be filed before the 1TAT wherein the tax effect involved is less than Rs.10 lakhs. Further, in para 10 of the Circular, it is provided that this instruction would apply retrospectively and the pending appeals below the specified tax limit of Rs.10 lakhs may be withdrawn/not pressed.
The learned CIT-DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue before us, at the outset, submitted that appeals can be withdrawn only after getting the approval of competent authority. He further referred to para 7 of the circular to submit that dismissal of appeal, however, in any case, on account of low tax effect should not be considered as a precedence in the matters of subsequent years where the tax effect is above the monetary limit prescribed by this Circular and the issue should be decided on merits.
The learned counsels for the assessee, on the other hand, stated that the Circular was squarely applicable to the present appeals of the Revenue.
After considering the submissions of both the parties, we find that prima facie, the tax effect involved in these appeals by the Revenue is below Rs. 10.00 lakhs and, therefore, we deem it proper to dismiss the appeals particularly because the pending appeal is covered by circular in view of para 10 of the circular. However, we may clarify that if on receipt of this order, the Assessing Officer finds that the tax effect is above Rs.10 lakhs or in any other manner, the Circular is not applicable in view of exceptions culled out in the Circular, he will be at liberty to file miscellaneous application for recalling of this order which the Tribunal will consider in accordance with law. We further find considerable force in the contention of the CIT/DR that this order cannot be considered as an acceptance by the Revenue on the issue involved in these appeals and will not be an estoppel for the Revenue to take up the issues, involved in these appeals, before ITAT on merits if the tax effect in those years is more than Rs.10 lakhs.
Keeping in view the above Circular and the provisions of section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and without going into merits of the cases, we dismiss the instant appeals filed by the Revenue as tax effect in all the appeals is less than Rs.10 lakhs.
The cross objection also stands dismissed as withdrawn.
In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed.