ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Globus, New Delhi

ITA 6714/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4676 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VAIBHAV CHAUDHARY
• Keywords: Business income; Tax effect
• Section: 37(1)

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. 6714/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ACIT, CIRCLE 52(1), VS. M/S GLOBUS NEW DELHI 501-502, TIMES SQUARE, ROOM NO. 1405, 14 TH FLOOR, SUSHANT LOK-I, E-2 BLOCK, GURGAON DR. S.P. MUKHERJEE (PAN: AAEFG2933Q) CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. VAIBHAV CHAUDHAR Y, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL WHICH IS EMAN ATE FROM THE ORDER DATED 15.9.2014 OF LD. CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UND ER:- 1.THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,000/- AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCED THE DETAILS OF EMPLOYEE S GOING TO BE RETIRED DURING THE YEAR AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS FOR CLAIM U/S. 37(1) FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS, RELIEF HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY G IVEN BY LD. CIT(A) AND AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO RECOGNIZED GRATUITY FU ND. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,21,187/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID EXGRATIA / BONUS EXCESS OF 20% OF SALARY TO ONLY TO EMPLOYEES. AS PER PAYMENTS OF BONUS ACT, 1965, THE MAXIMUM LIMIT OF BONUS PAYABLE TO AN EMPLOYEE IS 20% OF SUCH SALARY / WAGE S PAID TO HIM DURING THE YEAR. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ASSE SSEE PROFIT OF RS. 16,14,175/- FROM SALE OF SECURITIES UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN INSTEAD OF 2 BUSINESS INCOME DESPITE THE FACT THAT PURCHASE AND SALE OF SECURITIES WAS ALSO A REGULAR ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY / ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS STATED TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS AS FIXED BY THE CBDT. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE MAY BE DISMISSED ON THIS ACCOUNT. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT TH E CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE AO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. AFTER PERUSING THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES A PPEAL IS BELOW THE LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS, AS FIXED BY THE CBDT AND, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMEN TS 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 CO NVENIENCE, 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 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 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 3 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. 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 11/09/2017. SD/- SD/- (L.P. SAHU) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11/09/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR