ITO, Dehradun V. M/s. Hotel Mussoorie Club, Dehradun

ITA 6427/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7287 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-3, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6427/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ITO, WARD 1(3), VS. M/S HOTEL MUSSOORE CLUB, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SHARAD BELA ESTATE, 13-A, SUBHASH ROAD, PICTURE PALACE, MUSSORIE, DEHRADUN DEHRADUN (PAN: AAEFH2636M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. F.R. MEENA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 24-08-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 31-8-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.9.2015 OF LD. CIT(A), DEHRADUN PERTAINING TO ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2008-09. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS READ A S UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING DED UCTION U/S. 80IC OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, TO THE ASSESSEE FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT SINCE THE TERM ECO-TOURISM- HAS NOT BEEN DEFI NED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE MACHINERY PROVISION FOR OPERATIONALISING THE SAID DEDUCTION IS ABSENT AND H ENCE THE MAIN PROVISION FOR THE SAID DEDUCTION SHOULD ALSO F AIL. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE TH AT, IF ONLY HAVING AN NOC FROM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD WAS SUF FICIENT FOR A HOTEL TO BE COVERED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ECO-TOURISM , ALL HOTELS IN UTTRAKHAND SHOULD GET THE SAID DEDUCTION AND THAT W OULD BE AGAINST THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AN D THAT OF AO BE RESTORED. 3. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE, NOR ITS AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APP LICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. ITA NO. 6427/DEL/2015 2 KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, I AM OF THE VIEW TH AT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSES SEE, THEREFORE, I AM DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEAR ING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 4. I HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORDS. AT THE THRESHOLD, I FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENU E APPEALS IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTS APPEALS ARE 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. 5. 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 ITA NO. 6427/DEL/2015 3 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. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD HAV E WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I AM ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN TRIBUNAL. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/8/2016. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31/8/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR