ITO, New Delhi V. The Principal Officer, Delhi

ITA 1738/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6256 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJA
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G.D. AGRAWAL, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JM ITA NO. 1738/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ITO WARD 13(1), NEW DELHI. VS THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, M/S NALWA INVESTMENT LTD., 37, NAJAFGARH ROAD, DELHI. AAACN0171G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SH. P. DAM KANUNJ A, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAJ KUMAR, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 29.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.03.2016 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 20.12.2013 OF CIT(A)-XVI, DELHI. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR RIVAL SUBMISSIONS STATED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE DEPAR TMENTAL APPEALS IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LACS. THEREFORE, THE R EVENUE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FILED THE APPEAL AS DIRECTED BY T HE CBDTS LATEST CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10/12/2015 . 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AS REGARDS TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR FOR 2 ADJOURNMENT OF THIS APPEAL. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THIS IS NOT TO BE ADJOURNED AS PER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT TO THE DEPARTMENT, WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THA T THE CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 IS APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY AND THE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT, WHEREIN TAX EFFECT IS LE SS THAN RS. 10 LACS SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN OR NOT PRESSED. THEREFORE, THE REQUEST OF THE LD. DR FOR ADJOURNING THE APPEAL IS REJECTED. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. D.R., ALTH OUGH SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT C OULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FACT THAT TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-. 5. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIO N OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITI ES ARE BINDING ON THOSE AUTHORITIES, THEREFORE, THE DEPART MENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FILED THE APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE MENTIONED SECTION 268A SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED FOR NOT FIL ING THE APPEAL. 6. FROM CLAUSE 10 OF THE CIRCULAR IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PENDING APPEALS ALSO AND THERE IS CLEAR CUT INSTRUCTION TO THE DEPARTMENT TO WITHDRAW OR NOT TO PRESS THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE ITAT W HEREIN 3 TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-. THESE INSTR UCTIONS ARE OPERATIVE RETROSPECTIVELY TO THE PENDING APPEALS. 7. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21 OF 2015 DATED 10.12.2015 AND ALSO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 268A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE R EVENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS OF THE CASE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT . 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMI SSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30.03.2016) SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (BEENA A PILLAI) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICI AL MEMBER DATED: 30.03.2016 *KAVITA ARORA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR