DCIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Valeth Hightech Composites P. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1938/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4637 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI A BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. & SHRI. N.S. SAINI, A .M. I.T.A. NO. 1938/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE III(4), 121, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S. VALETH HIGHTECH COMPOSITES P. LTD., 56, KAZHIPATTUR, PADUR POST, KELAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 603 103. [PAN:AAACV1999E] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT EMANATES FROM THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) III, CHENNAI DATED 27.08.2010 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX INVOLVED WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APP EAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS LESS THAN THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE LATEST CIRCULAR OF CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 DATED 09.02.2011 PRESCRIBING FINANCIAL LIMIT FOR FI LING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL PLEADED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE. 3. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT I N THIS FRESH CIRCULAR DATED 09.02.2011, THERE IS SPECIFIC STIPULATION [AS PER P ARA 11 OF THE INSTRUCTION] THAT THIS INSTRUCTION SHALL APPLY TO APPEALS FILED ON OR AFTE R 09.02.2011 AND EARLIER FILED APPEALS WILL BE GOVERNED BY EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERATIVE WHEN SUCH APPEALS WERE FILED AND MOREOVER, THE LD. DR HA S SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THIS I II I.T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO.1 11 1938 938938 938/MDS/1 /MDS/1 /MDS/1 /MDS/10 00 0 2 APPEAL WAS FILED, THE FINANCIAL LIMIT WAS ` .2.00 LAKHS, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE AND SHOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIA L ON RECORD. SO FAR AS THE OBJECTION OF THE LD. DR ABOUT NON-RETROSPECTIVITY O F REVISED LIMIT OF TAX EFFECT IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT NO DOUBT IN THE CBDT INSTRU CTION NO.3/2011 DATED 09.02.2011, THERE IS CLEAR STIPULATION AS PER PARA 11 OF THE SAID INSTRUCTION THAT THESE INSTRUCTIONS WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE APPEAL S FILED ON OR AFTER 09.02.2011. BUT SIMILAR TYPE OF STIPULATION WAS THERE IN INSTRUCTIO N NO.3 OF 2008 DATED 15.05.2008 IN CLAUSE 11 OF SAID INSTRUCTION AND MORE THAN ONE HIG H COURTS ARE FOUND TO HAVE HELD THAT REVISED MONETARY LIMIT WOULD APPLY TO ALL PEND ING APPEALS AND MOREOVER, VARIOUS BENCHES OF ITAT CHENNAI HAVE CONSIDERED SIM ILAR CASES AGAINST THE REVENUE AND OTHERWISE, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ISSUE FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN T HE SAID CIRCULAR/ INSTRUCTION. 5. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ASSOCIATED AGENCIE S, CHENNAI-600 034 REPORTED IN 295 ITR 496, THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH CO URT HAS HELD THAT APPEALS CANNOT BE FILED IN VIOLATION OF THE SAID CIRCULAR. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAD ALSO REFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MADHYA PRA DESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DIGVIJAY SINGH REPORTED IN (2007) 292 ITR 3 14, THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ZOEB Y. TO PIWALS (2006) 284 ITR 379 AND ALSO ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CAMCO COLOUR CO., (2002) 254 ITR 565 FOR THE PROPOS ITION THAT DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD ARE BINDING ON THE DEPARTMENT AND APPEAL FILED WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THAT PROVIDED IN THE SAID INSTRUCTION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. I II I.T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO.1 11 1938 938938 938/MDS/1 /MDS/1 /MDS/1 /MDS/10 00 0 3 6. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE SAID CIRCULAR AND RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS FROM HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS NOTED ABO VE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARI NG ON 27.07.2011. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 27.07.2011 VM/- TO:THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.