SRI PRAKASH CHANDRA GOEL, SONEBHADRA V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

CO 11/ALLD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9192 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRENDRA OJHA
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH , ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 70 & 71/ALLD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE ALLAHABAD V. SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA GOEL 24/8, GAURAV NAGAR, CHOPAN SONEBHADRA T AN /PAN : AJEPG7666H (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.11 & 12/ALLD/2017 [IN ITA NO. 70 & 71/ALLD/2016] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA GOEL 24/8, GAURAV NAGAR, CH OPAN SONEBHADRA V. DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE ALLAHABAD T AN /PAN : AJEPG7666H ( CROSS OBJECTOR ) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI VIRENDRA OJHA, CIT (DR) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI PRAVEEN GODBOLE, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 19 12 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19 12 201 8 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P . : TH ESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) - III, LUCKNOW, DATED 25/1/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS I N SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.70 & 71/ALLD/2016 & C.O. NO.11 & 12/ALLD/2017 PAGE 2 OF 4 2. WE NOTE THAT IN THE SE APPEAL S FILED BY THE REVENUE , THE TAX EFFECT ON THE INCOME IN DISPUTE IS LESS THAN RS.20 LA KH S. 3. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 3/2018 DATED 11TH JULY, 2018 FILE NO.279 OF MISC.142/2007 - ITJ (PT), HAS ISSUED THE DIRECTION IN SUPE RSESSION OF THE INSTRUCTION NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 IN CONSONANCE WITH THE POWER ENTRUSTED UNDER SECTION 268A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 THAT NO APPEAL SHOULD BE FILED BEFORE TH E TRIB UNAL IN CASE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED RS.20 LA KHS . THE 'TAX EFFECT' IN THIS REGARD MEANS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AND THE TAX THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGEABLE, HAD SUCH TOTAL INCOME BEEN REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF INCO ME IN RESPECT OF ISSUES AGAINST WHICH APPEAL IS INTENDED TO BE FILED. THIS CIRCULAR FURTHER STATES THAT TAX WILL NOT INCLUDE ANY INTEREST THEREON, UNLESS THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST ITSELF IS IN DISPUTE. IN PARAGRAPH 13, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE CIRCULAR, THAT THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY EVEN TO PENDING APPEALS: '13. THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY TO SLPS/ APPEALS/CROSS OBJECTIONS/ REFERENCES TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN SC/HCS/TRIBUNAL AND IT SHALL ALSO APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO PENDING SLPS/APPEALS/CROSS OBJECTIONS/REFERENCES. PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED TAX LIMITS IN PARA 3 ABOVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSED. ' 4. THE TAX EFFECT IN EACH OF THE S E APPEAL S DOES NOT EXCEED RS.20 LA KHS . IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, AS PER THE CBDT CI RCULAR NO. 3/2018 DATED 11 TH JULY, 2018 FILE NO.279 OF MISC.142/2007 - ITJ (PT), THE REVENUE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO PRESS TH E S E APPEAL S . WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE R EVENUE IN LIMINE, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, AS IN OUR OPINIO N, THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT IS BINDING ON THE D EPARTMENT AL AUTHORITIES IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 268A(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 . THE SAID VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBL E ITA NO.70 & 71/ALLD/2016 & C.O. NO.11 & 12/ALLD/2017 PAGE 3 OF 4 SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NAVN I T LAL JH AVERI VS. K. K. SE N , 56 ITR 198 (SC). WE, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISS THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5. SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AN D HENCE THE SAME ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 /12 /2018. SD/ - SD/ - [ T. S. KAPOOR ] [ A. D. JAIN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 19 TH DECEMBER, 201 8 JJ: COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO.70 & 71/ALLD/2016 & C.O. NO.11 & 12/ALLD/2017 PAGE 4 OF 4 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH TYPED DRAFT ORDER IS LACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEM BER 2.A DATE ON WHICH TYPED DRAFT ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT ORDER COMES TO P.S/SR.P.S 4. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER C OMES BACK TO P.S./SR.P.S 6. DATE OF UPLOADING, IF NOT, REASON FOR THE SAME 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE O.S. 11. DATE ON WHICH THE FIL E GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 12. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DESPATCH SECTION FOR DESPATCH 13. DATE OF DESPATCH