ITO, Dindigul V. Dr.G.Gunaseelan, Palani

ITA 1056/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1161 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RANGAR AJAN JR
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI D BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI J.M. & SHRI. B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. I.T.A. NO.1056/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), DINDIGUL. VS. DR. G. GUNASEELAN, ANBU NURSING HOME, 100, RAILWAY FEEDER ROAD, PALANI. 624 601. [PAN:AEXPG0391K] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI K.E.B. RANGAR AJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL ASSESSEE BY : NONE ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M . THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) II, MADURAI DATED 16.03.2010 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ASSESSEES ADJOURNMENT REQUEST WA S FOUND TO BE NOT ADEQUATE TO ADJOURN THE HEARING. HENCE, WE REJECTED THE SA ME AND PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2. WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS LESS THAN RS.2.00 LAKHS, IN VIEW OF THE LATEST DECISION OF CBDT AND VARIOUS DECISIONS OF MADRAS HIGH COURT FOLLOWED BY THE CHENNAI BENCHES AND THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FACTUAL ASPEC T THAT TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS LESS THAN THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY VARIOUS BOARD INSTRUCTIONS AND HE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT WITHI N THE EXCEPTION AS MENTIONED IN THE SAID INSTRUCTION. 3. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND CONSIDERING T HE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASES IS BELOW RS.2,00, 000/-, FIXED BY THE C ENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES FOR FILING APPEALS BEFORE INCOME TAX A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.2 OF I.T.A. NO.1056/MDS/10 2 2005 DATED 24 TH OCTOBER, 2005 AND SUBSEQUENT INSTRUCT ION. THE REVENUE HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ISSUE FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN THE SAID CIRCULAR/ INSTRUCTION. 4. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ASSOCIATED AGENCIES, CHENNAI-600 034 REPORTED IN 295 ITR 496, THE HONBLE M ADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT APPEALS CANNOT BE FILED IN VIOLATION OF THE SAID CIRCULAR. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAD ALSO REFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MADHYA PR ADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DIGVIJAY SINGH REPORTED IN (2007) 292 ITR 314, THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ZOEB Y. TOPIWALS (2006) 284 ITR 379 AND ALSO ANOT HER JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. CAMCO COLOUR CO., (2002) 254 ITR 565 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD ARE BINDING ON THE DEPARTMENT AND APPEALS FILED WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THAT PROVIDED IN THE SA ID INSTRUCTION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 5. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE SAID CIRCUL AR AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLO WING THE PRECEDENTS FROM HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS AS NOTED ABOVE, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN T HE OPEN COURT ON 01.02.2011. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE. 01.02.2011 VM/- TO:THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.