ITO, Ward-8(2), Hyd, Hyderabad V. Ramesh Kumar Birader, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1012/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 98878 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KURMI NAIDU
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1012/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD VS SRI RAMESH KUMAR BIRADER, HYDERABAD [PAN: AQIPB1583H] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SHRI B. KURMI NAIDU, DR FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO, AR DATE OF HEARING : 22 - 1 2 - 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 - 1 2 - 2015 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEA L IS BELOW RS.10 LAKHS. VIDE CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, BEARING F.NO.279/- MISC.142/2007-ITI(PT), THE CBDT, FUNCTIONING UNDER THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, WITH A VIEW TO REDUC E UNNECESSARY LITIGATION ON THEIR PART, HAS ISSUED A CIRCULAR, WH EREIN THEY HAVE REVISED THE MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING OF APPEALS B Y THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HIGH COUR TS AND SUPREME COURT. INSOFAR AS THE TRIBUNAL IS CONCERNE D, THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IS RS.10 LAKHS. CBDT SPECI FIED THAT WHERE I.T.A. NO. 1012/HYD/2015 :- 2 -: THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMIT S PECIFIED THEREIN, THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY HAS TO WITHDRAW ITS APPEAL OR IT NEED NOT PRESS THE SAME. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFIED THAT THE T AX EFFECT INDICATED THEREIN IS APPLICABLE TO ALL PENDING APPEALS, THOUG H THEY ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE SAID CI RCULAR. IT WAS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CA LCULATE THE TAX EFFECT SEPARATELY FOR EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESP ECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUE(S) IN THE CASE OF EVERY ASSESSEE. I F, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, THE DISPUTED ISSUE ARISES IN MORE THAN ON E YEAR(S), APPEAL(S) CAN BE FILED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSME NT YEAR(S) IN WHICH TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUE E XCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED, IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE ARE A NUMBER OF YEARS, IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE SPECIFIED LIMIT IN ONE YEAR, APPEAL CANNOT BE FILED OR THE SAME HAS TO BE WITHDR AWN FOR THAT YEAR, FOR WANT OF TAX EFFECT. HOWEVER, AN EXCEPTIO N IS MADE TO THIS DIRECTION WITH REGARD TO A COMBINED ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THAT IS, IF IN ONE OF THE YEA RS THE TAX EFFECT IS MORE THAN RS.10 LAKHS AND THE REVENUE DECIDES TO FI LE AN APPEAL, IN RESPECT OF OTHER YEARS COVERED BY THE SAID ORDER ALSO, REVENUE IS ELIGIBLE TO FILE APPEAL, EVEN THOUGH THE TAX EFFECT IN EACH OF THOSE YEARS IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. IT WAS ALSO CLARIF IED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF TAX EFF ECT, IT DOES NOT COME IN THE WAY OF THE DEPARTMENT IN FILING APPEAL FOR OTHER YEARS(S), AND IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACQUIESCED THE ISSUE. 2. THE ABOVE CIRCULAR WAS SPECIFICALLY MADE APPLICA BLE TO ALL PENDING APPEALS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, TAX EFFECT O N ACCOUNT OF THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) WHICH LED TO THE FILIN G OF THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE REVENUE, IS ADMITTEDLY, LESS THAN RS .10 LAKHS. I.T.A. NO. 1012/HYD/2015 :- 3 -: 3. THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM HAS INTRODUCED S.2 68A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961, WHEREBY THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED TO ISSUE ORDERS/INSTRUCTIONS/DIRECTIONS TO THE INCOME-TAX AU THORITIES, FIXING THE MONETARY LIMITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING THE FILING OF APPEALS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 10.12. 2015, ISSUED BY THE CBDT IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED IN IT BY SUBSECTION (1) OF S.268A, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL FILED HEREIN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRESSED BY THE REVENUE. THE LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE REVENUE EFF ECT IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN PARA-3 OF THE ABOVE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE A S WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSED, AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN CO URT. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R HYDERABAD, DATED 22 ND DECEMBER, 2015 TNMM I.T.A. NO. 1012/HYD/2015 :- 4 -: COPY TO : 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), 8 TH FLOOR, D-BLOCK, IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 2. SRI RAMESH KUMAR BIRADER, 21-2-593/96, KIND MARK ET, URDU GALLI, NEAR CHARMINAR, HYDERABAD. 3 . CIT ( APPEAL S ) - 2 , HYDERABAD. 4. PR. C IT - 2 , HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.