Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd., Lucknow V. DCIT, New Delhi

CO 220/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3331 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: HARDEEP SINGH
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 5264/DEL/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S SAHARA I NDIA REAL ESTATE CORP. LTD. CIRCLE-6 1- KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX, ROOM NO. 334, ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI (PAN:AAJCS7265F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND CROSS OBJECTION NO. 220/DEL/2017 (IN ITA NO. 5264/DEL/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 M/S SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORP. LTD. VS. DY. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME 1- KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX, TAX, CIRCLE-6, ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW ROOM NO. 334, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI , SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. DINESH VERMA, AD V. & SH. HARDEEP SINGH, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AND ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION WHICH IS EMANATE FROM THE ORDER DATED 17.7.2014 OF LD. CIT(A)-1, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- 2 1. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND F ACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 5,46,754/- IMPOSED BY A DDL. CIT U/S. 271E OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND ANY / ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEA L. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS STATED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS AS FIXED BY THE CBDT. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE MAY BE DISMISSED ON THIS ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT PRESS THE CROSS OBJ ECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE AO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS BELOW THE LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS, AS FIXED BY THE CBDT AND, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, IN V IEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 ISSUED VIDE F.NO. 279/MISC. 142/200 7-ITJ (PT.) BY THE CBDT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PARA NOS. 3 & 10 OF THE AFORESAID CBDTS 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 HE REUNDER: S NO A PPEALS IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (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 PRESCR IBED 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/ TRIB UNALS. PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED TAX LIMITS IN PARA 3 AB OVE MAY BE 3 WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED. APPEALS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERA TIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. 5. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIO N OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE INCOME- TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE AUTHORITIES, T HEREFORE, 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 A MOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS, PRESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE SAID CBDTS INSTRUCTIONS. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE WIT HDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIE W THAT THE SAID INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO B E FILED HENCEFORTH IN TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION 7. AS FAR AS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS CONCERNE D, SINCE THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEEE DID NOT PRESS THE CROSS OBJECTION, HENCE , THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS SUCH. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21/12/2017. SD/- SD/- [B.P. JAIN] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21/12/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR