ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s JBM Auto Limited, New Delhi

ITA 3616/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7750 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P K GUPTA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Tax effect
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3616/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), VS. M/S JBM AUTO LIMITED ROOM NO. 407, CR BLDG., 703B, HEMKUNT CHAMBERS IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI 89, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-1 9 (PAN: AAACJ9630N) ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. AMIT JAIN, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. P.K. GUPTA, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 19-5-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 01-06-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.5.2011 OF LD. CIT(A)-VII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C IT (A) IS ERRONEOUS & CONTRARY TO FACTS AND LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRC U MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE L EARNED C IT (APPEA L S) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING T H E ADDITION U/S 14A OF THE I. T. ACT TO RS. 1,30,10 7/ - AS AGAINST RS.9,1 4,838 / - MADE BY THE AO . 2.1 . THE LD. CIT (A) IGNORED THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE AO AND THE FACT THAT THE ADD I TION WAS CORRECTLY MADE B Y THE AO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 80 OF I.T. RU L ES. ITA NO.3616/DEL/2011 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,42,622/- BEING THE EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON COMPUTER PERIPHERAL S . 3.1 . THE LD. CIT (A) IGNORED THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY TH E AO AND THE FACT THAT THE DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER PERIPHER ALS IS ALLOWABLE @ 15% AND NOT @ 60% AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN DIRECTING THE AO NOT TO INCLUDE THE DISALLOWANCES MADE U/S 143(30 IN THE BO OK PROFIT OF T HE A SSESSEE. 4.1 . TH E CIT (A) IGNORED THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE AO AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DEFLATED ITS PROFIT BY CLAIM ING NON ALLOWABLE EXPENSES. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD , TO ALTER, OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF H EARING. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFEC T IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 2 1/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 ISSUED VIDE F.NO. 279/MISC. 142/2007 -ITJ (PT.) BY THE CBDT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PA RA NOS. 3 & 10 OF THE AFORESAID CBDTS CIRCULAR ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- ITA NO.3616/DEL/2011 3 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. 3. 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. 4. 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.3616/DEL/2011 4 INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/06/2016. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 01/06/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR