What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CBDT's instructions are binding on the tax authorities. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, the Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.

The Department appealed the deletion of disallowances made by the Assessing Officer concerning rent, salaries, travelling, and telephone expenses. The tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

What were the issues?

Whether the Department's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal when the tax effect is below the monetary limit specified by CBDT circulars.

ACIT vs Sh. Ashok Mittal, New Delhi | ITAT Delhi 2016

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACOUNTANT MEMBER

This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 22.11.2013 of Ld. CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:- “

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance on account of rent paid amounting to Rs. 8,40,000/- in the absence of evidence of payment of rent and also as the same was not shown as payable to Mittal Corporation

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 7,88,650/- as salaries and allowance paid to employees in the absence of sufficient proof of payment.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,93,479/- as travelling expenses (India) in the absence of evidence that the same was incurred for business purpose.

4. On the fact and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has ered in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,15,313/- as telephone expenses claimed did not relate to the assessee.

The appellant craves leave to amend or alter all or any of the aforesaid grounds ofa pepal and amend, alter or add any other ground of appeal

2. From the above, we find that the tax effect in the Revenue’s Appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, therefore, the Department’s Appeal is 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 S No Appeals in Income-tax matters (in Rs) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- 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.”

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 Appeal is 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, we are of the view that the Revenue should have withdrawn/ not pressed the instant appeal 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, the Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed. 5. In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03/02/2016. Sd/- Sd/-

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ASHOK MITTAL, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments