JCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Bharat Exports Corporation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2970/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6460 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R ITA NO. 2970/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S BHARAT EX PORTS CORPORATION CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 PVT. LTD., ROOM NO. 331, ARA CENTRE, 13-B, 3 RD FLOOR, NETAJI SUBHASH JHANDEWALAN EXTN., MARG, DARYA GANJ, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI (PAN:AABCB1748E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND CROSS OBJECTION NO. 472/DEL/2012 (IN ITA NO. 2970/DEL/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 M/S BHARAT EXPORTS CORPORATION PVT LTD., VS. DCIT, CC-25, NEW DELHI C/O RAJIV SAXENA & CO., ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS, 318, POCKET-D, MAYUR VIHAR-II, DELHI 110 091 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. S.K. JAIN, DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAJIV SAXENA, AD V. & MS. SUMANGLA SAXENA, ADV. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AND ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION WHICH IS EMANATE FROM THE ORDER DATED 15.3.2011 OF LD. CIT(A)-I, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND FACTS. 2 2. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,30,800/- MADE U/S. 6 8 OF THE I.T. ACT BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY INTRODUCED DURIN G THE YEAR. 3. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,25,579/- OUT OF TOTA L ADDITION OF RS. 3,49,859/- MADE U/S. 14A OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY / ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARIN G OF THE APPEAL. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS STATED TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS AS FIXED BY THE CBDT. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE MAY BE DISMISSED ON THIS ACCOUNT. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE AO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. AFTER PERUSING THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES A PPEAL IS BELOW THE LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS, AS FIXED BY THE CBDT AND, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMEN TS 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. FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE, 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 LIMITS GIVEN HE REUNDER: 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 COUR T 25,00,000/- 3 IT IS CLARIFIED THAT AN APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED MERELY BECAUSE THE TAX EFFECT IN A CASE EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMITS PRESCR IBED 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/ TRIB UNALS. PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED TAX LIMITS IN PARA 3 AB OVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED. APPEALS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERA TIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. 5. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIO N OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE INCOME- TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE AUTHORITIES, T HEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE PRESENT APPEAL, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTIONS SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE A MOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS, PRESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE SAID CBDTS INSTRUCTIONS. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE WIT HDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIE W THAT THE SAID INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO B E FILED HENCEFORTH IN TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION 7. AS FAR AS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS CONCERNE D, SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON LOW TAX EFFECT, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND DISMISSED AS SUCH. 4 8. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/03/2017. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 01/03/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR