ACIT, Patiala V. Sh. Narinder Kumar Sharma, Zirakpur

ITA 999/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2534 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 999/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 THE ACIT, VS SHRI NARINDER KUMAR SHARMA CENTRAL CIRCLE, LOHGARH, WARD - 6, PATIALA. ZIRAKPUR. PAN: AQPPS6208M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ MISHRA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL DATE OF HEARING : 11.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.01.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I, LUDHIANA DATED 04.07.2012 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. ACCORDING TO CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10.12.20 15, THE CBDT IN SUPERCESSION OF EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS HAS DI RECTED THAT DEPARTMENTS APPEALS BEFORE ITAT SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY L IMIT OF RS. 10 LACS. THE TAX WILL NOT INCLUDE ANY INTEREST THE REON. IT IS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT IF IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSE E, DISPUTED ISSUES ARISE IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPE AL CAN BE FILED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS I N WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF DISPUTED ISSUES EXCEEDS TH E MONETARY LIMIT SO SPECIFIED. THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY RE TROSPECTIVELY TO 2 PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED T AX LIMIT MAY BE WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSED. 3. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LACS, THEREFORE, DEPARTMENTAL APPE AL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DECIDED THE ISS UE IN DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ON FACTS AND THE CASE OF THE RE VENUE WOULD NOT FALL IN THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN THE ABOVE CI RCULAR. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, LD. DR STATED THAT SINCE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE CBDT INSTR UCTIONS, THEREFORE, HE WOULD NOT BE PRESSING DEPARTMENTAL AP PEAL. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISS ED BEING NOT PRESSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (BHAVNE SH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11 TH JANUARY, 2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD