ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Getit Infomediary Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4979/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4130 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SH ARUN KUMAR YAD AV
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4979/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), VS. M/S GETIT INFOMEDIARY LTD ., NEW DELHI 8-B, BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI 110 002 (PAN: AABCG7022L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SH. ARUN KUMAR YAD AV, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL WHICH IS EMAN ATE FROM THE ORDER DATED 19.6.2014 OF LD. CIT(A)-XV, NEW DELHI PERTAINING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UND ER:- 1. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN CANCELLING THE P ENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO BY RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NALWA SONS INVESTMENT LTD. 327 ITR 43 W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE FACTS OF THE SAME ARE QUITE DISTINGUISHABLE FRO M THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND A NY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COL. NO. 11 OF FORM NO. 36, WHICH WAS RETURNED BACK WITH THE REMARKS LEFT WITHOUT ADDRESS AND NO NEW ADDRE SS HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN THE REGISTRY RECORDS BY THE ASSESEE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRES ENT APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAI N AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE 2 SAME ADDRESS, THEREFORE, WE ARE DECIDING THE PRESE NT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. A FTER PERUSING THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS BEL OW THE LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS, AS FIXED BY THE CBDT AND, 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. 142/200 7- ITJ (PT.) BY THE CBDT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE , 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 BEF ORE 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 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. 3 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. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/10/2017. SD/- SD/- (L.P. SAHU) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12/10/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4