ACIT, Chandigarh V. M/s Pb Small Inds. & Export Corp. Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 785/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73575 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR AMA RVEER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SUSHANT KEPR ATI; ROHAN THAKUR
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 82 & 83/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 THE ITO, VS. MATA JIWANI SEWARATH TRUST, SUNDER NAGAR VILL: DHARMERA (DODUWAN) H.P. DISTT MANDI (H.P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING : 11.03.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.03.2014 APPELLANT BY : DR. AMARVEER SINGH RESPONDENT BY : S/SHRI ROHAN THAKUR & SUSHANT KEPR ATI ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2013 OF CIT(A), SHIMLA 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THESE APPEAL ARE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT WHERE DEPARTMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FILE D THE APPEAL. 3. THE LEARNED D.R. ALTHOUGH SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID FACT THAT TA X EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.3,00,000/-. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND 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 AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIO N OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE A UTHORITIES, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FILED THE APPEAL IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED 2 SECTION 268A SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT CA SE IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 201 1 DATED 09.02.2011, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE FI LED THE INSTANT APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WHILE TAKING SUCH A VIEW, WE ARE FO RTIFIED 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) 7. IN THE CASE BEFORE US SINCE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FI LED IN 2014 WHEREAS THE INSTRUCTION NO. 3/11 HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE CBDT ON 9.02.2011, THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE REVENUE SHOULD NOT FILE THESE APPE AL BECAUSE INSTRUCTIONS ARE BINDING ON THE DEPARTMENT. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS OF THE CASE, WE DISMISS THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMIS SED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.03.2014 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 20 TH MARCH, 2014 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR