DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Cecil Webber Engineering Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3741/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4073 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KR SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: AHARNISH KAPOOR
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Tax effect
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 3741/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) DCIT, CIRCLE 20, VS. CECIL WEBBER ENGINEERING LTD ., NEW DELHI H-108, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI GIR / PAN :AABCC6065D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL KR. SHARMA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AHARNISH KAPOOR, CA DATE OF HEARING: 10.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11.08.2016 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: THE APPELLANT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE REVE NUE') BY FILING THE AFORESAID APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.02.2013 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-VI, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09. 2. PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE APPARENTLY SHOW THAT THE SAME IS HAVING LOW TAX EFFECT AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER 2015 VIDE WHICH THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DIRECTED NOT TO PREFER ANY APPEAL IN CASE THE TAX E FFECT IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/- AND THIS FACTUAL POSITION HAS BEEN F AIRLY CONCEDED BY THE 2 I.T.A.NO.3741/DEL/2013 LD. D.R. THE LD. A.R. CONTENDED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED IN THE LIGHT OF CBDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA). 3. WE HAVE HEARD PARTIES ON THE ISSUE IN CONTROVER SY AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. PERUSAL OF CBDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA ) SHOWS THAT MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTM ENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT HAS BEEN REVISED AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AFORESAID C IRCULAR IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: '3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER: S.NO. APPEALS IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (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 MONETARY LIMITS PR ESCRIBED 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 P ARA 3 ABOVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN / NOT PRESSED. APPEALS BEFORE THE SUPR EME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OP ERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. ' 4. THE CONTENTION OF LD. SR. D.R. THAT HE NEEDS SO ME TIME TO PROCURE THE REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO WORK OUT T HE TAX EFFECT, IS NOT TENABLE BECAUSE WHEN APPARENTLY, THE APPEAL IN QUES TION IS COVERED UNDER CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER 2015 (SUPRA), THE REVENUE CANNOT IMPORT THE FACTS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDG E OF THE ASSESSING 3 I.T.A.NO.3741/DEL/2013 OFFICER TO FURTHER PROLONG THE MATTER. HOWEVER, IN CASE ANY FACT WHICH IS OTHERWISE NOT ON RECORD, WARRANTS THE RESTORATION O F THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE REVENUE IS AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL UNDE R RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW. 5. IN VIEW OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21 DATED 10.12.2 015 HAVING RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AB OVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AFORESAID APPEAL IS NOT MA INTAINABLE BECAUSE OF LOW TAX EFFECT I.E. LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/- HENCE, THE AFORESAID APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED HAVING BEE N BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH AUG., 2016. SD./- SD./- (R. S. SYAL) (BEEN A. PI LLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 11.08. 2016 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER 4 I.T.A.NO.3741/DEL/2013 (ITAT, NEW DELHI) S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 10/8 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 11/8 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 11/8/16 SR . PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 11/8 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 11/8 SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER