ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3515/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 February 2016AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates that departmental appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed before the ITAT. The dismissal was without prejudice to the Revenue's right to pursue similar issues in future years if the tax effect exceeds the limit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT concerning Assessment Year 2010-11. The tax effect in this appeal was less than Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether a departmental appeal is maintainable before the ITAT when the tax effect is below the threshold prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Vimal Sr. DR, Shri Tarandeep Singh Adv
Hearing: 01/02/2016

\IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY: JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 Addl. CIT(TDS) Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Ghaziabad. C/o GPO Compound, Meerut. PAN: AABCB 5576 G ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rakesh Vimal Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri Tarandeep Singh Adv. Date of hearing : 01/02/2016. Date of order : 03/02/2016. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M:

This is revenue’s appeal against the order dated 25.03.2013, passed by the ld. CIT(A)-Meerut, relating to A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

Admittedly, the tax effect in the present appeal is less than Rs. 10 lakhs.The recent CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 stipulates that no departmental appeal, involving tax effect below Rs.10 lakhs, shall be filed before the ITAT. Para 10 of the Circular specifies that such instruction would apply retrospectively and the pending appeals below the specified tax limit of Rs.10 lakh may be withdrawn/not pressed.

3.

Ld. DR could not controvert the aforementioned factual position. He, however, referring to clarification given in paragraph 7 of the Circular, submitted that withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue on account of low tax effect should not be considered as a precedent in the subsequent years of the acceptance of issues involved in this appeal and, therefore, if in the subsequent year similar issue arises before the ITAT, where the appeal is above the tax limit, as prescribed in this Circular, the same should be decided on merits.

4.

Since the tax effect involved in the present departmental appeal is below 10 lakhs, therefore, in view of recent CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, this appeal is not maintainable in terms of section 268A(1) of the Income-tax Act. However, we may clarify that if on receipt of this order, the Assessing Officer finds that the tax effect involved is above Rs.10 lacs 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 take such steps, as deem fit, to recall the order. We also agree with the contention of the learned DR that this order would not be considered as an acceptance by the Revenue on the issue involved in this appeal and will not be an estoppel for the Revenue to take up the issue involved in this appeal before the ITAT on merits if the tax effect in those years is more than 10 lakhs.

5.

Keeping in view the aforementioned CBDT Circular and the provisions of section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without going into merits of the cases, we dismiss the instant appeal filed by the Revenue as tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.10.00 lacs.

6.

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronouncement in open court on 03/02/2016.

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →