ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C- 1 INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4160/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 January 2016AY 2006-077 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 all appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, rejecting the request for adjournment.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed multiple appeals before the ITAT. The Revenue's counsel requested an adjournment to obtain verification reports and instructions from the Commissioner of Income Tax for withdrawing the appeals. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in each appeal did not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit are maintainable before the Tribunal. Whether adjournment should be granted to the Revenue to seek instructions for withdrawal of appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A,Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A-1 ’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER All these appeals are filed by the Revenue arise out of separate orders passed by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in relation to the captioned Assessment Years. 1.1. Few of the assessee-respondents were represented by the respective Ld. Counsels, while others remained unrepresented. Shri Ravi Jain, Ld.CIT, D.R. represented the Revenue.

2.

As the tax effect in each of these Revenue appeals, was found as not exceeding the monetary limit of Rs.10 lakhs, they were posted for disposal.

3.

Mr.Ravi Jain, the Ld.CIT, D.R. filed a letter and submitted that, the Revenue requires time in all these cases, as a verification report from the Assessing Officer as well as the Instructions from the Commissioner of Income Tax is required for withdrawing/not pressing these appeals. He further pointed out that in para 7 of the said Circular it has been clarified by the CBDT that the withdrawal of these appeals by the Revenue on the ground that the tax effect is below Rs.10 lakhs, will not be a precedent.

4.

We have considered the submissions of the Ld.CIT, D.R. as well as that of the Ld.Cousels for the assesses in cases where they appeared.

5.

We have verified the tax effect on the income in dispute before us, in each of these Revenue appeals and have come to a conclusion that the tax effect on the quantum of income, that is in dispute before us in the grounds raised by the Revenue, is below Rs.10 lakhs. Hence in our view all the appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable in view of the recent CBDT Circular no.21/2015, F.No. 279/Misc./142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) dt.10th December, 2015 read with S.268A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act).

6.

Under these circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the request of the Ld.CIT, D.R. that the cases may be adjourned so as to enable him to call for reports from the respective Assessing Officers need not be granted. Hence we dismiss all these cases as ‘not maintainable’.

7.

However, in case the Assessing Officer, comes across a mistake in the calculation of tax effect or if he is of the opinion that the Revenue appeal is covered by any of the exceptions specified in the CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December,2015, F.No. 279/Misc./142/2007-ITJ(Pt.), the A.O. is granted liberty to file a Misc. Application u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 pointing out the mistake. If the Bench is convinced that there is a mistake apparent on record, then its order in that particular revenue appeal will be recalled and the appeal will be restored for fresh disposal on merits.

8.

In the result all the Revenue appeals are dismissed as ‘not maintainable’. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05th January, 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 →