ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Global Power Tech Equipments P Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1042/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52095 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] I.T.A.NOS.1042 & 1043/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 AND 2003-04 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COMPANY CIRCLE II(2) CHENNAI VS M/S GLOBAL POWER TECH EQUIPMENTS P. LTD [FORMERLY KNOWN AS SOUTHERN POWER TECH EQUIPMENTS P. LTD.] NO.29, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE NORTH PHASE, AMBATTUR CHENNAI 600 098 [PAN - AAACS8521R ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.E.B RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 07-12-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-12-2011 O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARAT E ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-V, CHENNAI, BUT DATED 30.3.2011. ITA 1042&1043/11 :- 2 -: 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, DESPITE HAVING BEEN D ULY SERVED WITH NOTICE OF HEARING THROUGH DEPARTMENT, NOBODY CAME T O REPRESENT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT, THEREFORE, THE APP EALS WERE HEARD EX-PARTE. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEALS, THE LD.DR WAS FAIR ENOUGH TO MENTION THE FACT THAT THESE REVENUE S APPEALS SUFFER FROM THE LIMITATION OF TAX EFFECT. THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS LESS THAN ` 3 LAKHS. INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 DATED 9 TH FEB.,2011 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TA XES, UNDER SEC.268A(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, HAS GIVEN DIRECTIONS NOT TO FILE APPEALS BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUN AL WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED ` 3 LAKHS. 3. THE FIRST INSTRUCTION NO.1093 DATED 28.10.1992 ISSUED BY THE BOARD, HAD LAID DOWN SUCH LIMIT AT ` 25,000/-. THEREAFTER THROUGH INSTRUCTION NO. 1979 DATED 27.3.2000, THE SAID LIMI T WAS ENHANCED TO ` 1,00,000/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE LIMIT WAS AGAIN INCRE ASED TO ` 2 LAKHS THROUGH INSTRUCTION NO.2 DATED 24.10.2005. 4. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS, WHEN THE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL IN LIMINE ON THE G ROUND OF NON- ITA 1042&1043/11 :- 3 -: MAINTAINABILITY, ISSUES WERE TAKEN UP BEFORE THE HO N'BLE HIGH COURTS. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S CAMCO COLOUR CO. (254 ITR 565) HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE REVENUE EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT, THE APPEA L IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THEREAFTER THE HON' BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CWT VS. ANNAMALI (258 ITR 675) HELD THAT T HE LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN THE LATEST INSTRUCTION IS APPLICABLE NOT ONLY TO THE APPEALS TO BE FILED AFTER THE ISSUE OF SUCH INSTRUCTIONS, BUT ALSO APPL ICABLE TO THE PENDING APPEALS. THIS VIEW WAS AGAIN FOLLOWED BY THE HON'B LE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AGENCIES (295 ITR 496). THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ALSO HAS HELD THE SAME VIEW IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PITHWA ENGG. WORKS (276 ITR 519 ) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ZOEB Y. TOPPIWALA (284 ITR 379). 5. THUS, THE COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT WH ERE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT, APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND HAVE ALSO HELD THAT THE LAT EST SUCH INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE EVEN TO THE PENDING APPEALS. 6. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THESE APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ITA 1042&1043/11 :- 4 -: THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07-12-2011. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( HARI OM MARATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 07 TH DECEMBER, 2011 RD COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR