ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Globecast India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 156/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4146 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SH ARUN KUMAR YAD AV
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 156/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S GLOBECAST INDIA P VT. LTD. WARD 10(2), ROOM NO. 374 601, 6 TH FLOOR, DLF SOUTH COURT C.R. BUILDING, SAKET, NEW DELHI 110 0 17 NEW DELHI 110 002 (PAN: AACCG0015C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SH. ARUN KUMAR YAD AV, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL WHICH IS EMAN ATE FROM THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2014 OF LD. CIT(A)-XV, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UND ER:- I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD REDUCED ITS TAX LIABILITY BY CLAIMING EXPENSES UNDE R THE HEAD FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES WHEREAS THE SAME HAD TO BE BORNE BY THE PARENT COMPANY M/S GLOBECAST ASIA PVT. LTD. SINGAPORE. III) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASS ESSEE HAD FURNISHED INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME BY C LAIMING FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES. IV) THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE H EARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COL. NO. 11 OF FORM NO. 36, WHICH WAS RETURNED BACK AND NO NEW ADDRESS HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN THE REGISTRY REC ORDS BY THE ASSESEE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CA SE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE W OULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME ADDRESS, THER EFORE, WE ARE DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. A FTER PERUSING THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS BEL OW THE LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS, AS FIXED BY THE CBDT AND, 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 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 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. 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. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/10/2017. SD/- SD/- (L.P. SAHU) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 04/10/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR