DCIT, Jaipur V. BAID LEASING & FIANCE COMPANY LTD., Jaipur

ITA 1051/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4226 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: NARESH SHARMA
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 1051/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012-13 THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S BAID LEASING & FINANCE CO. LTD., BAID HOUSE, 1, TARA NAGAR, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AACCH 0140B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NARESH SHARMA (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 03/10/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/10/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 30.09.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL:- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 20,69,030/- MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 R.W.S. CLAUSES (II &III) OF RULE 8D AND WHEN T HE ADDITION ITA NO.1051/JP/2016 DCIT VS. M/S BAID LEASING & FINANCE CO. LTD. 2 WAS IN CONSONANCE WITH CBDT CIRCULAR 5/2004 DATED 11.02.2014. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWAN CE OF COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 17,39,800/- & VEHICLE REPOSSESSION EXPENSES OF RS. 24,72,700/- IGNORING T HE FACTS THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO GROUP COMPANIES AN D NO CORROBORATING DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED IN SUPPORT OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION/REPOSSESSION OF VEHICLES ETC. AS STATED IN PARA 4.8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RA ISED AN OBJECTION REGARDING MAINTAINABILITY OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE DUE TO THE TAX EFFECT NOT EXCEEDING RS. 20 LACS AS PER THE CBDT CI RCULAR NO. 3 OF 2018 DATED 11 TH JULY, 2018. IN SUPPORT, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED A CALCULATION SHEET DETERMINING THE TAX EFFECT AT RS 18,84,459. 2.1. THE LD. D/R HAS FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS 20 LACS WHICH IS P RESCRIBED THRESHOLD LIMIT IN TERMS OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 3/2018 DATE D 11 TH JULY, 2018 ISSUED IN SUPERSESSION OF ITS EARLIER CIRCULAR NO. 21 OF 2015 DATED 10.12.2015. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE DEMAN D/ TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IN QUESTION IS BELOW RS. 20.00 LAC S . UNDER THE POWERS VESTED BY SECTION 268A(1) OF THE IT ACT, CBDT HAS R ECENTLY ISSUED CIRCULAR NO. 3/2018 DATED 11 TH JULY, 2018 (F NO. 279/MISC. ITA NO.1051/JP/2016 DCIT VS. M/S BAID LEASING & FINANCE CO. LTD. 3 142/2007-ITJ(PT) INSTRUCTING THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE ITAT WHERE THE DEMAND/TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED RS. 20 LACS. THE CIRCULAR IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED TO BE APPLICABLE FOR ALL PENDING APPEALS. 4. SUBJECT TO SOME EXCEPTIONS, IT IS FURTHER DIREC TED BY CBDT THAT ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS PENDING BEFORE ITAT WHERE THE DEMAND/TAX EFFECT IS NOT EXCEEDING THAN RS 20 LACS SHOULD BE E ITHER WITHDRAWN OR NOT PRESSED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES. 5. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT COVERED BY ANY EXCEPT IONS MENTIONED IN THE SAID CBDT CIRCULAR. SINCE THE TAX DEMAND IN DISPUTE IN THIS APPEAL IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED THRESHOLD/LIMIT SET OUT BY CBDT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF CBDT CIR CULAR NO. 3 OF 2018 DATED 11.07.2018. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED/WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/10/2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 05/10/2018. *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. ITA NO.1051/JP/2016 DCIT VS. M/S BAID LEASING & FINANCE CO. LTD. 4 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S BAID LEASING & FINANCE CO. LTD. , JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 1051/JP/2016} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR