ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. B.L. Kashyap & Sons, New Delhi

ITA 1473/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7076 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1473/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17 VS. M/S BL KASHYAP & SON S ROOM NO. 353, E-2, B-I/A-21, EXTN., ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN MOHAN COOPERATIVE, INDL. ESTATE EXTENSION, NEW DELHI -55 MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAAFB4369B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND CROSS OBJECTION NO. 14/DEL/2015 (IN ITA NO. 1473/DEL/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 M/S BL KASHYAP & SONS, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 17 B-I/A-21, EXTN., NEW DELHI MOHAN COOPERATIVE, INDL. ESTATE MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAAFB4369B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. K.K. JAISWAL, DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. SAURAV ROHATGI, CA DATE OF HEARING : 20-01-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 03-02-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THE APPEAL AND ASSESSEE H AS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION WHICH IS EMANATE FROM THE ORDER DATED 23.1.2014 OF LD. CIT(A)-III, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 1473/DEL/2014 & CO NO. 14/DEL/2015 2 1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF TH E CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT O F DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,58,106/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. (A) THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. (B)THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY / ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING O F THE APPEAL. 3. WE FIND THAT REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITIONS OF RS. 10,00, 000/- AND RS. 12,58,106/- RESPETIVELY RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 1 & 2, AS AFORESAID. 4. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 ISSUED VIDE F.NO. 279/MISC. 142/200 7- ITJ (PT.) BY THE CBDT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE , THE RELEVANT PARA NOS. 3 & 10 OF THE AFORESAID CBDTS CIRCULAR ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/ SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS GIVEN HE REUNDER: S NO APPEALS IN INCOME -TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS) 1 BEF ORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 10,00,000/- 2 BEFORE HIGH COURT 20,00,000/- 3 BEFORE SUPREME COURT 25,00,000/- IT IS CLARIFIED THAT AN APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED MERELY BECAUSE THE TAX EFFECT IN A CASE EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMITS PRESCR IBED ABOVE. FILING OF APPEAL IN SUCH CASES IS TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 10. THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN HIGH COURTS/ TRIB UNALS. PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED TAX LIMITS IN PARA 3 AB OVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED. APPEALS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERA TIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. ITA NO. 1473/DEL/2014 & CO NO. 14/DEL/2015 3 5. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIO N OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE INCOME- TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE AUTHORITIES, T HEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE PRESENT APPEAL, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTIONS SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE A MOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS, PRESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE SAID CBDTS INSTRUCTIONS. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE WIT HDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIE W THAT THE SAID INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO B E FILED HENCEFORTH IN TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION 7. AS FAR AS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS CONCERNE D, THE SAME IS WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/02/2016. SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICI AL MEMBER DATED: 03/2/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR