ACIT, TRICHY vs. WELLSHINE INVESTMENTS AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, TRICHY

आदेश / O R D E R

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A.No.1868/Mds/2014 :- 2 -: “ (i) The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s.2(22) (e) by relying on the case laws which are not applicable to the instant case. (ii) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the definition of the dividend under the Income Tax Act is inclusive and not exhaustive”. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record.

As seen from the order of CIT(A), the tax effect from this appeal is less than �4,00,000/- as the deletion of addition is � 12,00,000/- which is less than monetary limits fixed by the CBDT to file appeal by the Revenue as per CBDT circular No.5/2014, dated 10th July, 2014 wherein the monetary limit fixed at �4,00,000/- to file appeal before the Tribunal. The ld Departmental Representative submitted that the Board’s circular No.5/2014 issued on 10.7.2014 revising the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the department before the Tribunal will apply to the appeals filed on or after 10.07.2014 and not to the appeal filed prior to 10.07.2014. Thus, ld. Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the argument of the assessee and stated that this instruction is prospective and not retrospective. In our opinion, as held by the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Sujit Pandey vide order dated 10.09.2014 in the CBDT instruction No.5/2014, dated 10.7.2014 had revised the monetary limit for filing an appeal to Tribunal to �4,00,000/- and the same would be applicable to pending appeals also for the reason that the same is exactly identical to earlier instructions issued by CBDT, therefore, where tax effect was less than I.T.A.No.1868/Mds/2014 :- 3 -: �4,00,000/- appeal was not maintainable. Being so, the Revenue authorities are precluded from filing of appeal in this case also. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as un-admitted.

Order pronounced on Monday, the 13th day of April, 2015, at Chennai.