ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. B.L. KASHYAP & SONS, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1473/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 February 2016AY 2003-043 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 Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made by the AO. The tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was found to be less than Rs. 10,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit. Whether the Assessee's cross-objection should be dismissed as not pressed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI J.S. REDDY

Date of Hearing : 20-01-2016 Date of Order : 03-02-2016

ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. The Department has filed the Appeal and Assessee has filed the Cross Objection which is emanate from the Order dated 23.1.2014 of Ld. CIT(A)-III, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2003-04. The grounds raised in the revenue’s appeal reads as under:-

“1. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by AO on account of disallowance of expenses. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,58,106/- made by AO on account of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act. 3. (a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b)The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.

3. We find that Revenue in the Grounds of Appeal before the Tribunal has challenged the deletion of additions of Rs. 10,00,000/- and rs. 12,58,106/- respetively raised vide ground no. 1 & 2, as aforesaid.

4. 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 (in S No Appeals in Income-tax matters 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.”

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 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, 6. 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. ASSESSEE’S CROSS OBJECTION 7. As far as Assessee’s Cross Objection is concerned, the same is was not pressed by the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee, hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed.

8.

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross Objection stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03/02/2016.

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →