DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. BLUDIP PAINTS AND CHEMICALS, GHAZIABAD

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM All these appeals filed by the Revenue were fixed because apparently, in all the cases, the tax effect is below Rs. 10 lakhs which would be evident from the disputed additions in the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue. The disputed additions before us are as under:-

2. 5965/Del/2014 DCIT vs. Bludip Paints and Rs. 20,96,351/- Chemicals 3. 3985/Del/2014 ACIT vs. The Pawal Co- Rs. 24,13,808/- operative Sugar Mills Ltd. 4. 5022/Del/2015 ACIT vs. Sona Udyog Rs. 24,71,310/-

“3. Henceforth, appeals/ SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:

S. Appeals in Income- Monetary No. tax matter Limit (in Rs.) 1. Before Appellate 10,00,000/- Tribunal 2. Before High Court 20,00,000/- 3. Before Supreme 25,00,000/- Court

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 Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/ not pressed.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.” 4. Therefore, the above Circular would be squarely applicable to the appeals under consideration before us.

5. Learned CIT-DR Shri Ravi Jain who appeared at the time of hearing before us stated that he needs some time to call for the report from the Assessing Officer 5 as well as instructions from Administrative CIT for withdrawing these appeals because the appeals were filed with the approval of Administrative CIT. Learned CIT-DR further pointed out that in paragraph 7 of the said Circular, it has been clarified by the CBDT that withdrawal of these appeals 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 these appeals and, therefore, if in the subsequent years 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.

6. After considering the submissions of learned DR, the facts of all the cases and the Circular of the CBDT, we are of the opinion that there is no necessity for adjourning the appeals and calling the report from the Assessing Officer because apparently, the tax effect involved in these appeals of the Revenue is below Rs. 10 lakhs. However, we add here that if on receipt of order, the Assessing Officer finds that the tax effect is above Rs. 10 lakhs or, in any other manner, the Circular is not applicable, he will be at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application. We also agree with the contention of the learned CIT-DR that this order would not be considered as an acceptance by the Revenue on the issue involved in these appeals and will not be an estoppel for the Revenue to take up the issue involved in these appeals before the ITAT on merits if the tax effect in those years is more than Rs. 10 lakhs.

With this remark, we deem it proper to dismiss the appeals in the light of the Circular No. 21/2015 of CBDT dated 10th December, 2015.

Order Pronounced in the open Court on 23/12/2015.