Sh. Ishtiaq Ahmed, Lucknow V. DCIT, New Delhi

CO 248/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3234 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J J MEHROTRA
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3156/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SH. ISHTIA Q AHMAD, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, ROOM NO. 334, 1, KAPOORTHALA C OMPLEX, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW NEW DELHI (PAN:ACPPA7639A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND CROSS OBJECTION NO. 248/DEL/2010 (IN ITA NO. 3156/DEL/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98 SH. ISHTIAQ AHMAD, VS. ACIT, CC-6, 1, KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX, ARA CENTRE, ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR. ASSESSEE BY : SH. J.J. MEHROTRA, C A ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AND ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION WHICH EMANATE FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A-I), NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. SINCE THE GROUNDS ARE SIMILAR, HENCE , THE APPEAL & CROSS OBJECTION WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CO MMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN :- I) THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW A ND FACTS. II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 26,68,440/- AND MODIF Y THE ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY. III) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND A NY / ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF TH E HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES CROSS OB JECTION READ AS UNDER:- I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO T O ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 26,68,440/- MA DE IN THE REVISED COMPUTATION FILED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. II) THAT THE RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS ON OR B EFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS STATED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBE D LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS AS FIXED BY THE CBDT. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED ON THIS ACCOUNT. 5. 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. 3 6. 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 APPEALS 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 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. 7. 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 4 TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT APPEALS ARE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS, PRESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE SAID CBDTS INSTRUCTIONS. 8. 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 OBJECTIONS 9. AS FAR AS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS CONCER NED, SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT, AS AFORESAID, HENCE, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTU OUS AND DISMISSED AS SUCH. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 04/10/2017. SD/- SD/- (L.P. SAHU) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 04/10/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR