ACIT, New Delhi V. M Kee Pharma Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5131/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 513120114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV DUDEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: V M CHAURASIA
• Keywords: Gift; Retrospective amendment; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. H. S. SIDHU, JM ITA NO. 5131/DEL/2012 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 10 ACIT, CIRCLE 5(1), ROO M NO. 409A, C.R BUILDING, NEW DELHI - 2 VS M/S KEE PHARMA LTD., A - 1, COMMUNITY CENTRE, NARAINA INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI - 28 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAAC K0120C ASSESSEE BY : SH. RANO JAIN, CA & SH. V. M. CHAURASIA , ADV. REVE NUE BY : SH. GAURAV DUDEJA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 13 .11.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14. 11.2014 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.7.2012 OF LD. CIT(A) - VIII , NEW DE LHI . 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT READ AS UNDER: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 9,97,474/ - OUT OF BUSINESS PRO MOTION EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ALL THE VOUCHERS TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE GIFT EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS . 2. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) ERRONEOUS AND IS NOT TEN ABLE ON FACTS IN LAW. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER. OR AMEND ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO. 5131/DEL/2012 KEE PHARMA LTD. 2 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTS ET STATED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.3,00,000/ - , THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FILED THIS APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT AND THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 268A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE IN AFTER TO BE REFERRED AS THE ACT). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R., ALTHOUGH SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FACT THAT TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.3,00,000/ - . 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT SECTION 268A HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01/04/99. THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 268A READ AS UNDER: 268A. (1) THE BOARD MAY, FR OM TIME TO TIME, ISSUE ORDERS, INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS TO OTHER INCOME - TAX AUTHORITIES, FIXING SUCH MONETARY LIMITS AS IT MAY DEEM FIT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING FILING OF APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE BY ANY INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY UNDER THE PRO VISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. (2) WHERE, IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDERS, INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1), AN INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE ON ANY ISSUE IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE FOR ANY ASSESSME NT YEAR, IT SHALL NOT PRECLUDE SUCH ITA NO. 5131/DEL/2012 KEE PHARMA LTD. 3 AUTHORITY FROM FILING AN APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE ON THE SAME ISSUE IN THE CASE OF ( A ) THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR; OR ( B ) ANY OTHER ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR. (3) NOTWITHSTANDING THAT NO APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE HAS BEEN FILED BY AN INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE ORDERS OR INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1), IT SHALL NOT BE LAWFUL FOR AN ASSESSEE, BEING A PARTY IN ANY APPEA L OR REFERENCE, TO CONTEND THAT THE INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY HAS ACQUIESCED IN THE DECISION ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE BY NOT FILING AN APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE IN ANY CASE. (4) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OR COURT, HEARING SUCH APPEAL OR REFERENCE, SHALL HA VE REGARD TO THE ORDERS, INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SUCH APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE WAS FILED OR NOT FILED IN RESPECT OF ANY CASE. (5) EVERY ORDER, INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION WHICH HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE BOARD FIXING MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING AN APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) AND THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTIONS (2), (3) AND (4) SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. ] 6. IT IS NOT IN DISP UTE THAT THE BOARD S INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE OTHER INCOME - TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE AUTHORITIES, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FILED THE ITA NO. 5131/DEL/2012 KEE PHARMA LTD. 4 APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED SECTION 268A SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL. 7. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE CBDT HAS ISSUED INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 DATED 09.02.2011, BY WHICH THE CBDT HAS REVISED THE MONETARY LIMIT TO RS. 3,00,000/ - FOR FILING THE APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 DATED 09.02.2011 AND ALSO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 268A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WH ILE TAKING SUCH A VIEW, WE ARE FORTIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT : - 1. CIT V OSCAR LABORATORIES P. LTD (2010) 324 ITR 115 (P&H) 2. CIT V ABINASH GUPTA (2010) 327 ITR 619 (P&H) 3. CIT V VARINDERA CONSTRUCTION CO. (2011) 331 ITR 449 (P&H)(FB) 9. SIMILARLY, THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DELHI RACE CLUB LTD. IN ITA NO.128/2008, ORDER DATED 03.03.2011 BY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER DATED 02.08.2010 IN ITA NO.179/1991 IN THE CASE OF CIT DELHI - III V. M/S. P.S . JAIN ITA NO. 5131/DEL/2012 KEE PHARMA LTD. 5 & CO. HELD THAT SUCH CIRCULAR WOULD ALSO BE APPLICABLE TO PENDING CASES. 10. FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED IN THE CIRCULARS BY CBDT ARE APPLICABLE FOR PENDING CASES ALSO. THERE FORE, BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT INSTRUCTION NO.3/11 DATED 09.02.2011 ISSUED BY THE CBDT ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PENDING CASES ALSO AND IN THE SAID INSTRUCTIONS, MONETARY TAX LIMIT FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT IS RS. 3.00 LAKHS. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WITHOUT GOING INTO MERIT OF THE CASE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 1 2 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRONOU N CED IN T H E OPEN COURT ON 14 /11 / 2014 ) . SD/ - SD/ - ( H. S. SIDHU ) ( N. K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14 /11 / 2014 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT R EGISTRAR