ACIT, Mangalore V. E. Thrivikrama (HUF), Dakshina Kannada

ITA 1121/BANG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8660 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: S VENKATESAN
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 1121 & 1122 / BANG/20 12 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 ) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MANGALORE. VS. APPELLANT E.THRIVIKRAMA, HUF GURUKRIPA KALLERI, RAMAKUNJA PO, PUTTUR. D K 574241 PAN: AAAHE 1276 N RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.R.REDDY, CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.VENKATESAN, CA. DATE OF HEARING : 02/02/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02 /02/2016 O R D E R PER I NTURI RAMA RAO, AM : TH ESE APPEAL S BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) - VI, BANGALORE, BOTH DATED 26 TH JUNE 2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN TH E S E APPEAL S IS BELOW RS.10 LAKHS. T HE CBDT, WITH A VIEW TO ITA NO S . 1121 & 1122 /BANG/201 2 PAGE 2 OF 4 REDUCE UNNECESSARY LITIGATION ON THEIR PART, HAS ISSUED A CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10TH DECEMBER, 2 015, WHEREIN THEY HAVE REVISED THE MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING OF APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURT. INSOFAR AS THE TRIBUNAL IS CONCERNED, THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IS RS.10 LAKHS. THE CBDT SPECIFIED THAT WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED THEREIN, THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY HAS TO WITHDRAW ITS APPEAL OR IT NEED NOT PRESS THE SAME. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFIED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INDICATED THEREIN IS APPLICABLE TO ALL PENDING APPEALS, THOUGH THEY ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE SAID CIRCULAR. IT WAS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CALCULATE THE TAX EFFECT SEPARATELY FOR EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUE / S IN T HE CASE OF EVERY ASSESSEE. IF, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, THE DISPUTED ISSUE ARISES IN MORE THAN O NE YEAR(S), APPEAL(S) CAN BE FILED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) IN WHICH TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUE EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT SPE CIFIED. 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 WITHDRAWN FOR THAT YEAR, FOR WANT OF TAX EFFECT. HOWEVER, AN EXCEPTION IS MADE TO THIS DI RECTION WITH REGARD TO A COMBINED ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THAT IS, IF IN ONE OF THE YEARS THE TAX EFFECT IS MORE THAN RS.10 LAKHS AND THE REVENUE DECIDES TO FILE AN APPEAL, ITA NO S . 1121 & 1122 /BANG/201 2 PAGE 3 OF 4 IN RESPECT OF OTHER YEARS COVERED BY THE SAID ORDER ALSO, R EVENUE IS ELIGIBLE TO FILE APPEAL, EVEN THOUGH THE TAX EFFECT IN EACH OF THOSE YEARS IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. IT WAS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF TAX EFFECT, IT DOES NOT COME IN THE WAY OF THE DEPARTMENT IN FILIN G APPEAL FOR OTHER YEARS(S), AND IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACQUIESCED THE ISSUE. 3 . THE ABOVE CIRCULAR WAS SPECIFICALLY MADE APPLICABLE TO ALL PENDING APPEALS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TAX EFFECT ON THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE, WHICH WAS D ELETED BY THE CIT(A) BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS INDISPUTABLY BELOW 10 LAKHS. 4. THE L EGISLATUR E IN ITS WISDOM HAS INTRODUCED SECTION 268A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WHEREBY THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED TO ISSUE ORDERS/INSTRUCTIONS/DIRECTIONS TO THE INCOME - TAX AUTHORITIES, 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 CONFER RED IN IT BY SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 268A, WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT THE APPEAL FILED HEREIN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRESSED BY THE REVENUE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE REVENUE EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT IN PARA - 3 OF THE ABOVE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBD T. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL S OF THE ITA NO S . 1121 & 1122 /BANG/201 2 PAGE 4 OF 4 REVENUE AS WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSED, AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. 5. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE IS AT LIBERTY TO MOVE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION/PETITION IN CASE IT IS FOUND THAT THE CASE IS COVERED BY ONE OF THE EXCEPTION(S) CARVED OUT IN THE SAID CIRCULAR. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 02 ND DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2016 SD/ - (V IJAY PAL RAO ) SD/ - (I NTURI R AMA R AO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : BANGALORE D A T E D : 02 /0 2 /2016 SRINIVASULU, SPS COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) - I I BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE