ITO, Dehradun V. M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. as representative assessee of Dr. Octavian Cantuneanu, Canada, Dehradun

ITA 812/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2860 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA
• Assessee Lawyers: KAVEESH SYAL
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Tax effect
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS: 804 TO 814 /DEL/2012 AYS: - 2011-12 ITO, VS. OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. INTERNATIONAL TAXATION AS REPRESE NTATIVE ASSESSEE OF M/S. 13-A, SUBHASH ROAD WELL COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY, USA AAYAKAR BHAWAN ONGC LTD. CORPORATE TAX DIVISION, DEHRADUN. ROOM NO. 244, TEL BH AWAN DEHRADUN APPELLANT BY : SH. P. DAM KANUNJNA, SR. D R RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KAVEESH SYAL, CA DATE OF HEARING :23.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2016 ORDER PER BENCH THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARISE OUT THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-II, DEHRADUN. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR THESE AP PEALS IS 2011-12. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET STATED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS LESS THAN RS. 10,00,000/-, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE LATEST CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 ISSUED BY THE CBDT AND THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 268A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER TO BE REFERRED AS THE ACT), T HESE APPEALS SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS BEING BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT. 3. THE LD. AR ALSO FILED A CHART REFLECTING THE DISPUTED TAX AS UNDER :- 2 ITA NO. _/ DEL / 2012 CIT (A) APPEAL NO._/CIT(A) -II / 2011-12 NON-RESIDENT TRAINING IMPARTED ON PERIOD TAX EFFECT (RS.) 804 54 WELL COMPLETION TECHNOLOGY, USA APPLICATION OF DIPMETER AND BOREHOLE IMAGERY TECHNIQUES 03 RD TO 07 TH JANUARY, 2011 2,25,002 805 55 -DO- NATURAL GAS PROCESSING INCLUDING PROCESSING OF SOUR GAS 14 TH TO 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2011 2,45,368 806 56 JOHN H. MARTIN ASSOCIATES LIMITED, UK HORIZONTAL, MULTI-LATERAL, AND SUB-SEA WELLS- DRILLING, COMPLETION AND STIMULATION 13 TH TO 17 TH DECEMBER 2010 2,06,090 807 57 -DO- ARTIFICIAL LIFT-PRODUCTION, MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE 31 ST JANUARY TO 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2011 1,93,967 808 58 -DO- COSTING OF OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FOR OFFSHORE AND ONSHORE SEPARATELY 23 RD TO 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2011 1,72,631 809 59 -DO- HIGH PRESSURE-HIGH TEMPERATURE WELL TESTING AND COMPLETION 10 TH TO 12 TH JANUARY, 2011 1,44,506 810 60 -DO- PRODUCTION LOG EVALUATION AND INTERPRETATION 31 ST JANUARY TO 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2011 1,84,269 811 61 DR. OCTAVIAN CATUNEANU, CANADA EXPLORATION CONCEPTS IN CARBONATES 3 RD TO 5 TH JANUARY, 2011 90,712 812 62 -DO- WORKSHOP ON SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY BAIN ANALYSIS INCLUDING A FIELD SEMINAR IN KUTCH 11 TH TO 26 TH DECEMBER 2010 3,07,061 813 63 -DO- WORKSHOP ON PETROLEUM GEOLOGY OF DEEPWATER DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS INCLUDING FILED SEMINAR IN ANDAMAN 08 TH TO 18 TH NOVEMBER 2010 2,08,707 814 64 -DO- EXPLORATION CONCEPTS IN CLASTICS 27 TH TO 31 ST DECEMBER 2010 1,30,024 3 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FILED THE APPEALS AND PRAYED THAT ALL THE APPE ALS MAY BE DISMISSED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR ALTHOUGH SUPPOR TED THE ORDER OF AO, BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FACT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING OF APPEALS BEF ORE THE ITAT. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT SECTION 268A HAS BEEN IN SERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01/04/1999. THE REL EVANT PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 268A READ AS UNDER: 268A. (1) THE BOARD MAY, FROM TIME TO TIME, ISSU E 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, INSTRUCTION S OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), AN INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY HAS NOT FI LED ANY APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE ON ANY ISSUE IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT SHALL NOT PRECLUDE SUCH AUTHORI TY FROM FILING AN APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE ON THE SAME ISSUE IN THE CASE OF (A) THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEA R; OR (B) ANY OTHER ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME OR ANY OTHER AS SESSMENT 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-SECT ION (1), IT SHALL 4 NOT BE LAWFUL FOR AN ASSESSEE, BEING A PARTY IN ANY APPEAL OR REFERENCE, TO CONTEND THAT THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY HAS ACQUIESCE D IN THE DECISION ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE BY NOT FILING AN APPEAL OR APPLICATI ON FOR REFERENCE IN ANY CASE. (4) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OR COURT, HEARING SUCH APPEAL OR REFERENCE, SHALL HAVE REGARD TO THE ORDERS, INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIO NS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SUCH APPEAL O R APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE WAS FILED OR NOT FILED IN RESPECT OF ANY CASE. (5) EVERY ORDER, INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION WHICH H AS BEEN ISSUED BY THE BOARD FIXING MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING AN APPEAL OR APPL ICATION FOR REFERENCE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AN D THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTIONS (2), (3) AND (4) SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. 6. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTR UCTION OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE AUTHORI TIES, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FILED THESE APPEALS IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE MENTIONED SECTION 268A SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN ALL THE INSTANT CASES IS LE SS THAN THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL. 7. IN THE RESULT ALL THE ELEVEN APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1. 1.2016. SD/- SD/- (J SUDHAKAR REDDY) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 1.1.2016 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 5 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR L. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 23.12.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 28.12.2015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER