What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the tax authorities and that the appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed due to the low tax effect. The circular was also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Department appealed against the deletion of additions made on account of foreign traveling and professional charges. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

What were the issues?

Whether the Department's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circular.

DCIT vs M/S Inox Dpnc Outsourcing… | ITAT Delhi 2015

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI O.P. KANT

This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 15.1.2013 of Ld. CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. 2. The grounds raised in the appeal of the Department read as under:

“i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 8,55,150/- made on account of foreign traveling. ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 15,68,644/- made on account of professional charges. iii) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee, Sh. Salil Kapoor, Advocate has submitted that the tax effect in this 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.

Ld. DR, Shri T. Vasanthan, did not controvert the submissions of the Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee, but he relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 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.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16/12/2015.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S INOX DPNC OUTSOURCING SERVICES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments