ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3872/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8218 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SULEKHA VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMBHAV JAIN
• 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 J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3872/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), VS. M/S LANDBASE INDIA LIMI TED, NEW DELHI 25, COMMUNITY CENTRE, BASANT LOK, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAACL0053F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. SULEKHA VERMA, CIT( DR) RESPONDENT BY : SH. SAMBHAV JAIN, CA DATE OF HEARING : 02-05-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 02-05-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.6.2011 OF LD. CIT(A)-VII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND C ONTRARY TO FACTS AND LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS . 27,68,316/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON GOLF COURSE. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) IGNORED THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE AO AND THE FACT THAT THE GOLF COURSE IS A PIECE OF LAND AND COST OF DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE ADDED IN THE COST OF LAND AND IS NOT A DEPRECIAB LE ASSET. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 27 ,299/- MADE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT. 3.1 THE LD. CIT(A) IGNORED THE FINDING RECORDED B Y THE AO AND THE FACT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS CORRECTLY WORKED OUT BY A O IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES. ITA NO.3872/DEL/2011 2 4 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS . 91,060/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECATION ON COMPUTER PERIPHERALS. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE, TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. 2. WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APP EAL 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. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PARA NOS. 3 & 10 OF THE AFORESAID CBDTS C IRCULAR 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. ITA NO.3872/DEL/2011 3 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 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 02/05/2016. SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 02/05/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR