ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. BLA- MK (JV), New Delhi

ITA 2029/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6860 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIA L MEMBER I.T.A .NO.- 2029/DEL/2 012 A.Y 2008-09 ITO WARD -38 (1), C. R. BUILDING, I. P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS M/S. BLA - MK(JV) 38, LGF, NEW MANDAKNI NRI COMPLEX, GREATER KAILASH, NEW DELHI AAHFB9154H (RESPONDENT) AND C.O.NO.- 101/DEL/2013 A.Y 2008-09 M/S. BLA - MK(JV) 38, LGF, NEW MANDAKNI NRI COMPLEX, GREATER KAILASH, NEW DELHI AAHFB9154H (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD -38 (1), C. R. BUILDING, I. P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 28.02.2012 PASSED BY CIT(A)-XXVIII, NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSEE FILED CROSS OBJECTION. APPELLANT BY SH. T. JAMES SINGHSON, DR RESPONDENT BY SH. R. L. PEER, CA DATE OF HEARING 10.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.02.2016 2. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION BUT WHEN POINTED OUT THAT IT IS LOW TAX EFFECT SUBMITTED FUR THER THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS LESS THAN 10,00,000/-. 3. CBDT CIRCULAR NO. F. NO. 279/ MISC.142/207 ITJ(P T) DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, IN PARA 3, 7 AND 10 READS AS UNDER : 3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN C ASES 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/- 7. IN THE PAST, A NUMBER OF INSTANCES HAVE COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE BOARD, WHEREBY AN ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RELIE F FROM THE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE D EPARTMENT HAS IMPLICITLY ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L OR COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT Y EAR OR IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHE R ASSESSMENT YEAR, BY NOT FILING AN APPEAL ON THE SAM E DISPUTED ISSUES. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE/COUNSELS M UST MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO BRING TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT THAT THE APPEAL IN SUCH CASES WAS NOT FILED OR NOT ADMITTED ONLY FOR THE REASON OF THE TAX EFFECT BEING LESS THAT TH E SPECIFIED MONETARY LIMIT AND, THEREFORE, NO INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN THAT THE DECISIONS RENDERED THEREIN WERE ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THEY SHOULD IMPRESS UPON THE TRIBUNAL OR THE COURT THAT SUCH CASES DO NOT HAVE A NY PRECEDENT VALUE. A THE EVIDENCE OF NOT FILING APPEAL DUE TO THIS INSTRUCTION MAY HAVE TO BE PRODUCED IN COURTS, THE JUDICIAL FOL DERS IN THE OFFICE OF CSIT MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A SYSTEMIC MAN NER FOR EASY RETRIEVAL. . 10. THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN HIGH COURTS/TRIBUNALS. PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE SPECIFI ED TAX LIMITS IN PARA 3 ABOVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSE D. APPEALS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE IN STRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH AP PEAL WAS FILED. 4. THUS, THIS BEING A PENDING APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. F. NO. 279/ MISC.142/207 ITJ(PT) DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS APPEAL IS WITH DRAWN. HE HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS PRECEDENCE. 5. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN BY THE R EVENUE. HOWEVER, THIS WITHDRAWAL OF REVENUES APPEAL WILL N OT HOLD AS PRECEDENCE IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS. IN LIGHT OF T HIS THE CROSS OBJECTION BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND STANDS DISMISSED. 6. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED AS THE SAM E IS INFRUCTOUS. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10TH OF FEBRUARY 2016. SD/- SD/- (S. V. MEHROTRA) (SUCHI TRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10/02/2016 *R. NAHEED* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 10.02.2016 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 10.02.2016 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .02.2016 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. .02.2016 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 11.02.2016 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON .02.2016 PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 11.02.2016 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.