ACIT, Faridabad V. M/s. Lauls Ltd., Faridabad

ITA 1520/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7881 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Tax effect
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1520/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ACIT, VS. M/S LAULS LIMITED, CIRCLE-II, BLOCK-B 33B, NIT, FARIDABAD NEW CGO COMPLEX, NH-IV NIT, FARIDABAD (PAN: AAACL3118P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. RASHMITA JHA, SR. D R RESPONDENT BY : SH. P.C. PARWAL, CA & SH. RAKESH KHANDELWAL, CA DATE OF HEARING : 03-05-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 03-05-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.1.2014 OF LD. CIT(A), FARIDABAD PERTAINING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,OO,OOO/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE AO BEING LIABIL ITY ARE NO LONGER PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE.' 2 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN RESTRICTING THE DI SALLOWANCE TO RS.24,066/- AS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,56,720/ - MADE THE AO BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT READ WITH 1 RULE 8D(2)(II) AND 8D(2)(III) OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962.' 3. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN RESTRICTING THE DI SALLOWANCE TO ITA NO.1520/DEL/2014 2 RS.8,962/- AS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,09,270/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON RENTED POR TION OF THE BUILDING THE INCOME FROM WHICH IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' ON WHICH DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWABLE.' 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION TO RS.1,25,590/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE AO WHEN THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT THE FOREIGN VISIT W AS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES.' 5. 'THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR THE PERMISSION TO ADD, DELETE OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING OF APPEAL.' 2. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTS AP PEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 ISSUED VIDE F.NO. 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ (PT.) BY THE CBDT. FO R THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PARA NOS. 3 & 10 OF THE AFORESAID CBDT S CIRCULAR ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/ SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY L IMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER: S NO APPEALS IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS) 1 BEFORE 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 MONETA RY LIMITS PRESCRIBED ABOVE. FILING OF APPEAL IN SUCH CASES IS TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. ITA NO.1520/DEL/2014 3 10. THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN HIGH COURTS/ TRIBUNALS. PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED TAX LIMITS IN PARA 3 ABOVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED. APPEALS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTI ONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEA L WAS FILED. 3. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIO N OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE AUTHORI TIES, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE P RESENT APPEAL, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTIONS SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS, PRESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE SAID CBDTS INSTRUCTIONS. 4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD HA VE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE ALS O OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/05/2016. SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 03/05/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR