ITO, Bangalore V. Sri. P.S. Sreenivasan, Bangalore

ITA 249/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51310 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUMAR AJEET JT
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.249/BANG/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(2), BANGALORE. VS SHRI P.S. SREENIVASAN, BANGALORE 560 002. PAN: ADFPS 1820C APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI KUMAR AJEET, JT.CIT(DR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NONE DATE OF HEARING : 10.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.10.2011 O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2011 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-V, BANGALORE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE BY RPAD, SO WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE CA SE EX PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE, ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ITA NO.249/B/11 PAGE 2 OF 4 3. GROUNDS 1 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND SO DO NO T REQUIRE ADJUDICATION. GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4 READ AS UNDER: 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 64(1)(IV) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THAT THER E IS NO TRANSFER OF THE ASSET FROM THE ASSESSEE TO HIS WIFE AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 64 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THAT AS P ER SEC. 22 THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS CHARGED ON THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY. IN THIS CASE THE LEGAL OWNER O F THE HOUSE PROPERTY IS SMT. USHA SREENIVASAN. 4. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT PRESCRI BED BY THE CBDT FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL, AND SO THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THIS APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CB DT. 5. THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, STATED THAT THE ISSUE AGITA TED BY THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 6. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND A FTER PERUSING THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US, IT IS NOTICED THAT SECTION 268A HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 WITH RETROSP ECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.99. THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 268A R EAD AS UNDER: 268A. (1) THE BOARD MAY, FROM TIME TO TIME, ISSUE ORDERS, INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS TO OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTH ORITIES, FIXING SUCH MONETARY LIMITS AS IT MAY DEEM FIT, FOR THE PU RPOSE OF REGULATING FILING OF APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFE RENCE BY ANY INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS C HAPTER. ITA NO.249/B/11 PAGE 3 OF 4 (2) WHERE, IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDERS, INSTRUCTION S OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), AN INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFEREN CE ON ANY ISSUE IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT SHALL NOT PRECLUDE SUCH AUTHORITY FROM FILING AN APPEAL OR AP PLICATION FOR REFERENCE ON THE SAME ISSUE IN THE CASE OF - (A) THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR, OR (B) ANY OTHER ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR. (3) NOTWITHSTANDING THAT NO APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE HAS BEEN FILED BY AN INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE ORDERS OR INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED UND ER SUB-SECTION (1), IT SHALL NOT LAWFUL FOR AN ASSESSEE, BEING A P ARTY IN ANY APPEAL OR REFERENCE, TO CONTEND THAT THE INCOME-TAX AUTHOR ITY HAS ACQUIESCED IN THE DECISION ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE BY NOT FILING AN APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE IN ANY CASE. (4) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OR COURT, HEARING SUCH APPEAL OR REFERENCE, SHALL HAVE REGARD TO THE ORDERS, INSTRUC TIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AND THE CIR CUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SUCH APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENC E WAS FILED NOT FILED IN RESPECT OF ANY CASE. (5) EVERY ORDER, INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION WHICH HA S BEEN ISSUED BY THE BOARD FIXING MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING AN A PPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE B EEN ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AND THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SEC TIONS (2), (3) AND (4) SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. 7. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIO NS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE A UTHORITIES, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FILED THE APPEAL IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 268A SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL, SO THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS D ISMISSED. ITA NO.249/B/11 PAGE 4 OF 4 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K.) ( N.K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 10 TH OCTOBER, 2011. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.