DCIT, Bangalore V. Interfaceflor India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 940/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8729 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWALA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHARATH
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL BANGALORE BENCH C, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.940(BNG.)/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE-3(1)(1) RP BHAVAN, BANGALORE PAN NO.AABCI6663H APPELLANT VS M/S INTERFACEFLOR INDIA PVT.LTD G-1, PRIDE ELITE, NO.10, MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI SUNI L KUMAR AGGARWALA, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHARATH. S, ADVOC ATE DATE OF HEARING : 06-01-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-01-2016 O R D E R PER SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE. AT THE OUTSE T, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS BELOW RS. 10 LAKHS. VIDE CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10TH DECEMBER, 2015, BEARING F.NO. 279/- MISC.142/2007-ITI(PT), THE CBDT, FUNCTIONING UNDER THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, WITH A VIEW TO REDUCE UNNECESSARY LITIGATI ON ON THEIR PART, HAS ITA NO.940(B)/2015 2 ISSUED A CIRCULAR, WHEREIN THEY HAVE REVISED THE MO NETARY LIMITS FOR FILING OF APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL, HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURT. INSOFAR AS THE TRIBUNAL I S CONCERNED, THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IS RS.10 LAKHS. CBDT SPECI FIED THAT WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED THEREIN, THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY HAS TO WITHDRAW ITS APPEAL OR IT NEED NOT PRESS THE SAME. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFIED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INDICATED THE REIN IS APPLICABLE TO ALL PENDING APPEALS, THOUGH THEY ARE FILED BY THE REVEN UE PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE SAID CIRCULAR. IT WAS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CALCULATE THE TAX EFFECT SEPARATELY FOR EVERY ASSES SMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUE(S) IN THE CASE OF EVERY ASSESSEE . IF, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, THE DISPUTED ISSUE ARISES IN MORE THAN ON E YEAR(S), APPEAL(S) CAN BE FILED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) IN W HICH TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUE EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT SP ECIFIED. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE ARE A NUMBER OF YEARS, IF THE TAX EFFECT I S LESS THAN THE SPECIFIED LIMIT IN ONE YEAR, APPEAL CANNOT BE FILED OR THE SA ME HAS TO BE WITHDRAWN FOR THAT YEAR, FOR WANT OF TAX EFFECT. HOWEVER, AN EXCEPTION IS MADE TO THIS DIRECTION WITH REGARD TO A COMBINED ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THAT IS, IF IN ONE OF THE YEARS THE TAX EFFECT IS MORE THAN RS.10 LAKHS AND THE REVENUE DECIDES TO FILE AN APPEAL, IN RESPECT OF OTHER YEARS COVERED BY THE SAID ORDER ALSO, REVENUE IS ELIGIBLE TO FILE APPEAL, EVEN THOUGH THE TAX EFFECT IN EACH OF THOSE YEARS IS LES S THAN RS.10 LAKHS. IT WAS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE APPEAL IS DI SMISSED FOR WANT OF TAX ITA NO.940(B)/2015 3 EFFECT, IT DOES NOT COME IN THE WAY OF THE DEPARTME NT IN FILING APPEAL FOR OTHER YEARS(S), AND IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE DEPAR TMENT HAS ACQUIESCED THE ISSUE. 2. THE ABOVE CIRCULAR WAS SPECIFICALLY MADE APPLICA BLE TO ALL PENDING APPEALS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TAX EFFECT ON TH E ADDITION IN DISPUTE, WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) BY THE IMPUGNED ORD ER IS INDISPUTABLY BELOW 10.00 LAKHS. 3. THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM HAS INTRODUCED S.2 68A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WHEREBY THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED TO IS SUE ORDERS/INSTRUCTIONS/DIRECTIONS TO THE INCOME-TAX AU THORITIES, FIXING THE MONETARY LIMITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING THE F ILING OF APPEALS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 10.12.2015, ISSUED BY T HE CBDT IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED IN IT BY SUBSECTION (1) OF S.2 68A, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL FILED HEREIN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN P RESSED BY THE REVENUE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY ADMI TTED THAT THE REVENUE EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED L IMIT IN PARA-3 OF THE ABOVE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WITHD RAWN/NOT PRESSED, AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. ITA NO.940(B)/2015 4 4. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE IS AT LIBERTY TO MOVE APPR OPRIATE APPLICATION/PETITION IN CASE IT IS FOUND THAT THE C ASE IS COVERED BY ONE OF THE EXCEPTION(S) CARVED OUT IN THE SAID CIRCULAR. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 6 TH JANUARY, 2016. (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (INTURI RAMARAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: BANGALORE D A T E D : 06-01-2016 AM* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER, AR,ITAT, BANGALORE