ACIT, Bhiwani V. M/s. Vegan Colloids Ltd., Bhiwani

ITA 6715/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7975 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 10-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect

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. 6715/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. M/S VEGAN COLLOIDS LTD., SCO-222, HUDA CITY CENTRE, VPO SIWANI, DISTT. BHI WANI NEAR CENTRAL PARTK, HARYANA BHIWANI, HARYANA (PAN: AABCP4616R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. T. JAMES SINGSON, S R. DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 10-5-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 10-5-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.9.2013 OF LD. CIT(A), BIKANER PERTAINING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A), BIKANER HAS ERRED IN DELETING T HE PENALTY OF RS. 4,43,990/- IMPOSED BY THE AO, BIKANER U/S. 221(1) R EAD WITH SECTION 140A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY OBS ERVING THAT THE ORDER WAS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2. THE LD. CIT(A), BIKANER HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECI ATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTIO N AT THE TIME OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO. 3. THE LD. CIT(A), BIKANER HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECI ATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE JURISDICTION BY ITS C ONDUCT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. ITA NO. 6715/DEL/2013 2 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE, NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INV OLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE W OULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE FORE, WE ARE DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEAR ING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 3. WE FIND THAT REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF PENALTY OF RS. 4,43,990 /- VIDE GROUND NO. 1, AS AFORESAID. 4. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTS AP PEAL 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. FO R THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PARA NOS. 3 & 10 OF THE AFORESAID CBDT S CIRCULAR 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. ITA NO. 6715/DEL/2013 3 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 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, 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. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10/5/2016. SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 10/5/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR