DCIT, C.C. - XXVIII, Kolkata, Kolkata V. Subhash Pipes Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1182/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 118223514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BASUDEV HAZRA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI TULSIYAN
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH A, KOLKATA [ () . .. . . .. . , ,, , , . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . , , , , #$ ] ]] ] [BEFORE HONBLE SRI B.R.MITTAL, JM & HONBLE SRI C. D. RAO, AM] & & & & /ITA NO.1182/KOL/2010 '( )( '( )( '( )( '( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVIII -'- SUBHASH PIPES LTD., KOLKATA KOLKATA -VS- (+, / APPELLANT ) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT ) +, 0 1 #/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI BASUDEV HAZRA -.+, 0 1 #/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI RAVI TULSIYAN #2 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . ) )) ), , , , #$ PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST ORD ER DATED 11.03.2010 OF THE CIT(A)-CENTRAL-I, KOLKATA PERTAINING TO A.YR. 2006- 07. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BY REFERRING TO THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE SUBMI TTED THAT IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE AHS DISPUTED FOR THE DELETION OF ADDITION O F RS.2,19,262/- ONLY. THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS BELOW RS.2 LAKHS. THEREFOR E, AS PER THE INSTRUCTION OF CBDT CIRCULAR THE REVENUE IS BARRED FROM FILING OF THE A PPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE C OULD NOT CONTRADICT THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS C ASE IS BELOW RS.2 LAKHS. 2 4.1. ADMITTEDLY THE TAX PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF GROUN DS OF APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS AND AS PER REVISED INSTRUCT ION OF THE CBDT NO. 279 DATED 24 TH OCTOBER, 2005 W.E.F. 31.10.2005 AND SINCE IN THE PR ESENT CASE, THE ABOVE REVISED INSTRUCTION OF CBDT IS WELL APPLICABLE AND THEREFOR E, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE REFRAINED FROM FILING SECOND AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT WOULD BE APT TO QUOTE THE OBSERVATION OF THE DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- ITAT 232 ITR 207 AT PAGE 216 AS BELOW :- THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES INSTRUCTIONS ARE BINDING ON THE DEPARTMENT. IF THE CASE AT HAND IS C OVERED BY A POLICY LAID DOWN BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIREC T TAXES IN THAT CASE NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL REFUSING TO STATE THE CASE AND THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE HIGH COURT SHOULD INTERFERE WITH SUCH DISCR ETION OF THE TRIBUNAL AS HAS BEEN EXERCISED CONSISTENTLY WIT H THE UNIFORM POLICY LAID DOWN BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DI RECT TAXES WHICH BINDS ALL THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES O F THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THE HIGH COURT WOULD NOT ORDINARILY ENCOURAGE BREACH OF POLICY DECISIONS AND THE DEPARTMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS WHICH HAVE A PUBLIC PURPO SE BEHIND THEM. VALUABLE TIME OF HIGH COURTS AND HIGHL Y PLACED TRIBUNALS IS NOT TO BE WASTED ON PETTY MATTE RS. 4.2. FURTHER, THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS ALSO HELD I N THE CASE OF CIT VS.- CAMCO COLOUR LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF PITHWA ENGIN EERING WORKS REPORTED IN 276 ITR 519 MUMBAI THAT THE CIRCULAR IS BINDING ON THE REVE NUE AND AN APPEAL OR REFERENCE CONTRARY TO THE INSTRUCTION ISSUED IN THE CIRCULAR WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. 4.3. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE CIRCULARS ISSUED BY CBDT ARE BINDING ON THE REVENUE. THIS POSITION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS INDIAN OIL CORPORATIO N LTD. REPORTED IN 267 ITR 272 WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS EXAMINED THE EARLIER DECISI ONS OF THE APEX COURT WITH REGARD TO BINDING NATURE OF THE CIRCULAR AND LAID DOWN THA T WHEN A CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE BOARD REMAINS IN OPERATION THEN THE REVENUE IS BOUN D BY IT AND CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO PLEAD THAT IT IS NOT VALID OR THAT IT IS CONTRARY T O THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE. THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS CERTAINLY BEEN FILED CONTRA RY TO THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.5 OF 2008 DATED 15.5.2008. 3 4.4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), IS CONTRARY T O THE POLICY DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT AND AS SUCH THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPA RTMENT IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE . 5 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.07.2011. SD/- SD/- . .. . . .. . , ,, , B.R.MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . , ,, , #$ #$ #$ #$ , C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( ('$ '$ '$ '$) )) ) DATE: 28.07.2011 #2 0 -3 4#3)5- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SUBHASH PIPES LTD., 22, CAMAC STREET, KOLKATA-70001 6. 2 THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVIII, KOLKATA 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A)-CENTRAL-I, KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA .3 -/ TRUE COPY, #2':/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES R.G.(.P.S.)