ITO Ward-30(2), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Debashree Das, Kolkata

ITA 1789/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0177 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RABIN CHOUDHURY CITSRDR
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI, M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1789 / KOL / 20 17 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 ITO WARD-30(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, DAKSHIN, 5 TH FLOOR, 2, GARIAHAT ROAD (SOUTH),KOLKATA-68 V/S . DEBASHREE DAS P-239/2, HINDUSTAN PARK, KOLKATA-29 [ PAN NO.AAIPD 3230 L ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI RABIN CHOUDHURY, ADDL. CIT-SR-DR /BY RESPONDENT NONE /DATE OF HEARING 06-12-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06-12-2018 / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 A RISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-8 KOLKATAS OR DER DATED 11.05.2017, PASSED IN CASE NO.8/10184/2012-13, INVOLVING PROCEE DINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS AT ASSESSEES BEHES T. THE REGISTRY HAS ALREADY SENT AN RPAD NOTICE DATED 06.08.2018. W E THUS PROCEED EX PARTE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE IN THE INS TANT CASE. 2. IT IS SEEN AT THE OUTSET THAT THE TAX EFFECT ON ALL DISPUTED DISALLOWANCE S/ADDITIONS BEFORE US IS LESS THAN RS. 20 LACS IN C ASES THE PRESCRIBED REVISED THRESHOLD LIMIT IN CBDTS LATEST CIRCULAR NO. 3/201 8 DATED 11.07.2018. IT WILL BE PERTINENT TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PORTION OF T HE SAID CIRCULAR NO. 3/2018 DATED 11.07.2018:- ITA NO.1789/KOL/2017 A.Y . 2009-10 ITO WD-30(2), KOL. VS. D EBASHREE DAS PAGE 2 3 . HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/ SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED I N CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS GIVEN HE REUNDER: SL. NO. APPEALS/SLPS IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS) 1. BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 20,00,000/- 2. BEFORE HIGH COURT 50,00,000/- 3. BEFORE SUPREME COURT 1,00,00,000/- 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. 4. FOR THIS PURPOSE, 'TAX EFFECT' MEANS THE DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN THE TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AND THE TAX THAT WOULD HA VE BEEN CHARGEABLE HAD SUCH TOTAL INCOME BEEN REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES AGAINST WHICH APPEAL IS INTEN DED TO BE FILED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'DISPUTED ISSUES). FUR THER, 'TAX EFFECT' SHALL BE TAX INCLUDING APPLICABLE SURCHARGE AND CESS. HOWEVE R, THE TAX WILL NOT INCLUDE ANY INTEREST THEREON, EXCEPT WHERE CHARGEAB ILITY OF INTEREST ITSELF IS IN DISPUTE. IN CASE THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTERES T IS THE ISSUE UNDER DISPUTE, THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST SHALL BE THE TAX EF FECT. IN CASES WHERE RETURNED LOSS IS REDUCED OR ASSESSED AS INCOME, THE TAX EFFECT WOULD INCLUDE NOTIONAL TAX ON DISPUTED ADDITIONS. IN CASE OF PENALTY ORDERS, THE TAX EFFECT WILL MEAN QUANTUM OF PENALTY DELETED OR REDUCED IN THE ORDER TO BE APPEALED AGAINST. 3.1 WE FIND THAT INTENTION BEHIND THE CIRCULAR NO3/ 2018 DATED 11.07.2018 NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE FOLLOWING PERSPECTIVE :- BY PASSAGE OF TIME, THE MONEY VALUE HAS GONE DOWN, THE COST OF LITIGATION EXPENSES HAS GONE UP, NUMBER OF ASSESSE S ON THE FILES OF THE DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN INCREASED AND CONSEQUENTLY, TH E BURDEN ON THE DEPARTMENT IS ALSO INCREASED TO A TREMENDOUS EXTENT . THE CORRIDORS OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS ARE CHOKED WITH HUGE PENDENCY O F CASES. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE CBDT HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN A DE CISION TO REVISE THE MONETARY LIMITS IN TUNE WITH THE PRESENT VALUE OF M ONEY AND WITH A VIEW TO REDUCE THE LITIGATION AND OFFERING RELIEF TO S MALL TAX PAYERS. THIS IS ALSO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT TIME AND ENERGY OF TH E DEPARTMENT COULD BE USED MORE PRODUCTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY TO CATCH HOL D OF BIG FISHES, WHO IN TURN WOULD CONTRIBUTE MORE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF TH E COUNTRY. 3.2. ON PERUSAL OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 3/2018 DATED 11 .07.2018 AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE DO NOT SEE THIS C ASE FALLING UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS CONTEMPLATED IN THE SAID CIRCULAR PER SE . WE ALSO FIND THAT THIS CIRCULAR MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE REVISED MONET ARY LIMITS SHALL APPLY ITA NO.1789/KOL/2017 A.Y . 2009-10 ITO WD-30(2), KOL. VS. D EBASHREE DAS PAGE 3 RETROSPECTIVELY TO PENDING APPEALS AS WELL. H ONBLE APEX COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS INDIAN OIL CORPORATION L TD REPORTED IN 267 ITR 272 (SC) HAS SETTLED THE LAW THAT CBDTS CIRCULARS ARE VERY MUCH BINDING ON REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE THUS HOLD THAT THIS REVENUE S APPEAL DESERVE TO BE DISMISSED IN TERMS OF LOW TAX EFFECT. WE MAKE IT CL EAR THAT IT SHALL VERY MUCH OPEN FOR THE REVENUE TO SEEK NECESSARY RECTIFICATIO N IN CASE IT IS FOUND THAT ANY OF THESE APPEALS INVOLVE OPERATIONS OF EXCEPTIO N CLAUSES IN THE TAX EFFECT CIRCULAR AS PER LAW. 4. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR INVOLVING LOWER THAN THE PRESCRIBED MINIMUM TAX EFFECT. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT OF THE HEARING ON 6 TH DAY OF THURSDAY , DECEMBER, 2018 SD/- SD/- ( %) (' %) (M.BALAGANESH) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 06 / 12 /201 8 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ITO WARD-30(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN DAKSHIN, 5 TH FLOOR, 2, GARIAHAT ROAD (SOUTH), KOL KATA-68 2. /RESPONDENT-DEBASHREE DAS, P-239/2, HINDUSTN PARK, KOLKATA-29 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 7 ''3, 3, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ / 3,