ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH PANKAJ GUPTA, NEW DELHI

During the course of hearing, the Learned counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, therefore, the department ought not to have filed this appeal in view of the circular issued by the CBDT and the provisions contained in Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act).

After considering the submissions of both the parties and the material available on record, it is noticed that Section 268A has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 01/04/99. The said section 268 of the Act provides that the Board may issue instruction or directions to the other income-tax authorities fixing monetary limits for not filing the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal or the Courts, said instructions/directions are binding on the income tax authorities.

It is noticed that the CBDT has issued Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015, vide which it has revised the monetary limit to Rs.10,00,000/- for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the said circular reads as under:

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 Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/ not pressed.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.”

From Clause 10 of the above said circular it is clear that these instructions are applicable to the pending appeals also and as per clause 3, there is clear cut instruction to the department to withdraw or not to press the appeals filed before the ITAT wherein tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-. These instructions are operative retrospectively to the pending appeals.

Keeping in view the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015 and also the provisions of Section 268A of Income Tax Act, 1961, we are of the view that the Revenue should not have filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal.

As regards to the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is concerned. The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that he has the instruction not to press the Cross Objection. In view of the above, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed.

In the result, the appeal of the department and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed.