Income Tax Officer-1(3), Lucknow V. Shri Rajeev Paliwal, Lucknow

ITA 221/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1057 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: CBDT; SUPREM
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.221/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.221/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), LUCKNOW. VS. SHRI RAJEEV PALIWAL, 5/7, VIRAM KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AFXPP 2141 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 29/01/2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-1 2. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS BEL OW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT SO THE DEPARTMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FILED THIS APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY C.B.D.T. AND JUDGMENTS OF VARIOUS HIGH CO URTS AND SUPREME COURT. 3. THE LEARNED D. R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE ABOVE FACT. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. WE NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE TAX EFFECT ON THE INCOME UNDER DISPUTE IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LAC. WE FURTHER NOTE APPELLANT BY SMT. ALKA SINGH, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI SANDEEP SINGH, F.C.A. DATE OF HEARING 07/03/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07 /0 3 /2018 I.T.A. NO.221/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 2 THAT THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES VIDE CIRCULA R NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 FILE NO.279 OF MISC. 142/2007 ITJ (PT) HAS ISSUED THE DIRECTION IN SUPERSESSION OF THE INSTRUCTION NO.5/2 014 DATED 10/07/2014 IN PURSUANCE WITH THE POWER ENTRUSTED U/S. 268A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THAT NO APPEAL SHOULD BE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN CA SE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED RS.10 LAC. THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS REGARD M EANS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AND TH E TAX THAT WHAT HAVE BEEN CHARGEABLE HAD SUCH TOTAL INCOME BEEN REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF ISSUES AGAINST WHICH APPEAL IS INTENDED TO BE FILED. THIS CIRCULAR FURTHER STATES THAT TAX WILL NOT INCLUDE A NY INTEREST THEREON THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST ITSELF IS IN DISPUTE. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT UNDER PARAGRAPH 10 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER, IT HAS B EEN MENTIONED IN THE CIRCULAR THAT THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY EVEN TO T HE PENDING APPEALS. 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 PRESSED. APPEA LS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTI ONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. 4. IN THE IMPUGNED CASE, WE NOTE THAT THE TAX EFFEC T ON THE ISSUE UNDER DISPUTE DOES NOT EXCEED RS.10 LAC. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT AS PER THE INSTRUCTION, THE REVENUE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO PRESS THE APPEAL. WE , THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN LIMINE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS IN OUR OPINION THE CIRCULARS ISSUED BY CBDT ARE BINDING ON THE DEPARTMENTAL OFFICERS IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF S ECTION 268A(1) OF THE ACT. THE SAID VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF NAVNEET LAL ZAVERI VS. AAC 56 ITR 198 (SC). HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. S.R.M.B. DAIRY FARMING (P) LTD. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 19650 OF 2017 HAS FOLLOWED THE CASE OF THREE JUDGES BENCH JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME I.T.A. NO.221/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 3 COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT CENTRAL-III VS. SURYA HERB AL LTD. AND HAS HELD THAT THE CIRCULAR WOULD APPLY EVEN TO PENDING MATTERS. WE ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/03/2018) SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:07/03/2018 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR