ITO, Ward-24(2), New Delhi, V. Anupama Gupta, New Delhi,

ITA 2391/DEL/2006

• Counselvise Citation: 239120114 RSA 2006
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: G C AGARWAL
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2391/DEL/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. ANUPAM GUPTA WARD 24(2), S-32, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, CR BUILDING, PHASE-I, NEW DELHI -20 NEW DELHI (PAN: AFVPG 2742 K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. D R RESPONDENT BY : SH. G.C. AGARWAL, CA DATE OF HEARING : 16-12-2015 DATE OF ORDER : 16-12-2015 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.4.2006 OF LD. CIT(A)-XXIII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, SH. G.C. AGARWAL, CA, HAS STATED THAT THE TAX EFFEC T IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 ISSUED VIDE F.NO. 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ (PT.) BY THE CBDT. HE FURTHE R STATED THAT IN THIS APPEAL THE TAX EFFECT (PENALY) AMOUNT IS RS. 5,63,5 89/- AND THE SAME IS THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL TAX ON ADDITIONS OF RS. 15,89, 084/-. 4. LD. DR, SHRI T. VASANTHAN, DID NOT CONTROVERT TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 2391/DEL/2006 2 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PARA NOS. 3 & 10 OF THE AFORESAID CBDTS CIRCULAR ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/ SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES 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/- IT IS CLARIFIED THAT AN APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED MERELY BECAUSE THE TAX EFFECT IN A CASE EXCEEDS THE MONETA RY LIMITS PRESCRIBED ABOVE. FILING OF APPEAL IN SUCH CASES IS TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 10. THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN HIGH COURTS/ TRIBUNALS. PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED TAX LIMITS IN PARA 3 ABOVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED. APPEALS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTI ONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEA L WAS FILED. 6. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIO N OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE AUTHORI TIES, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE P RESENT APPEAL, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTIONS SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS, PRESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE SAID CBDTS INSTRUCTIONS. 7. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD HA VE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE ALS O OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID ITA NO. 2391/DEL/2006 3 INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN TRIBUNAL. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/12/2015. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 16/12/2015 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 2391/DEL/2006 4