DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GURUDEV FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5639/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 February 2016AY 2007-084 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 CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limits should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below Rs. 10,00,000, the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the deletion of additions made under Section 68 and disallowance of administrative expenses by the CIT(A). The tax effect in both appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable before the Tribunal when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI L.P. SAHU

Date of Hearing : 03-02-2016 Date of Order : 05-02-2016

ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. The Department has filed these Appeals and Assessee has filed these Cross Objections which are emanate from the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-30, New Delhi pertaining to assessment years 2006-07 & 2007-08. Since the issues involved in these appeals and cross objections are identical and similar, hence, they are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

&5639/Del/2015 & CO Nos. 326&327/Del/2015 2

2. The grounds raised in both the revenue’s appeals pertaining to assessment year 2006-07 & 2007-08 reads as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

in law and on facts in deleting addition made u/s. 68 of the Income Tax

Act which is wrong and bad in law.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of administrative expenses which is wrong and bad in law. 3. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter or forego any ground(s)

of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

3.

At the threshold, Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee stated that in both the Appeals filed by the Revenue the tax effect is below the prescribed limit, hence, both the Revenue’s Appeals may be dismissed. Ld. DR did not controvert the submissions of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. 3.1

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records, w e find that the tax effect in both the Revenue’s Appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, therefore, the Department’s Appeals are 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 (in S No Appeals in Income-tax matters Rs) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- &5639/Del/2015 & CO Nos. 326&327/Del/2015 3

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.” 5. 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 Appeals are less than the amount of Rs. 10 lacs, prescribed in the above said CBDT’s Instructions. Keeping in view the CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015, 6. we are of the view that the Revenue should have withdrawn/ not pressed the instant appeals 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, both the Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed.

ASSESSEE’S CROSS OBJECTION 7. As far as Assessee’s Cross Objection are concerned, the same are only supportive the Ld. CIT(A)’s orders. Since we have dismissed both the Appeals of the Revenue as aforesaid, hence, both the Cross Objections filed by the Assessee have become infructuous and dismissed as such. &5639/Del/2015 & CO Nos. 326&327/Del/2015 4

8.

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals as well as both the Assessee’s Cross Objections stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05/02/2016.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →