WTO, Shamli V. Shri Virendra Verma, Shamli

MA 260/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0368 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH FRIDAY : NEW DELHI) (DELHI BENCH FRIDAY : NEW DELHI) (DELHI BENCH FRIDAY : NEW DELHI) (DELHI BENCH FRIDAY : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.D. JAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI A.D. JAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI A.D. JAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI A.D. JAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.260/DEL./2009 (IN WTA NOS.1 & 2/DEL./2008) (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1995-96 & 96-97) WTO, WARD 1, VS. SHRI VIRENDRA VERMA, SHAMLI. S/OLATE SHRI RAGHUBEER SINGH, MOH. MANIHARAN, SHAMLI, DISTT. MUZAFFARNAGR. (PAN/GIR NO.N.A.) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANIL JAIN, ADV. REVENUE BY : SMT. MONA MOHANTY, SR.DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM VIDE ORDER DATED 10.11.2008 IN WTA NOS.1 & 2/DEL./2 008 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 AND 96-97 A MONGST OTHER APPEALS, WERE DISMISSED FOR TAX EFFECT BEING LESS THAN RS.2 LAKH. 2. IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION, AS REITERATED BY THE LD.DR IN HER ARGUMENTS, THE DEPARTMENT CONTENDS THAT THE REQUIREMENT REGARD ING THE TAX EFFECT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO WEALTH TAX CASES AND THAT SO THESE AP PEALS OUGHT TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 3. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENT ION TO CBDT CIRCULAR NO.5/2008 DATED 15.5.2008 (COPY PLACED ON RECORD). THE CBDT INSTRUCTIONS NO.1979 DATED 27.3.2000, 1985 DATED 29.6.2000, 6 OF 2003 DATED 17.7.2003, 19 OF 2003 DATED 23.12.2003, 5 OF 2004 DATED 27.5.2004 , 2 OF 2005 DATED 24.10.2005 AND 5 OF 2007 DATED 16.7.2007, WHEREIN M ANDATORY LIMITS FOR FILING DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS IN (INCOME TAX MATTERS) AND OT HER CONDITIONS WERE SPECIFIED FOR FILING APPEALS BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBU NAL, HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURT, AS PER THE MANDATORY LIMITS AND CONDITIONS S PECIFIED IN THE SAID M.A. NOS.573 & 574/DEL./2010 (IN I.T.A. NOS.2439 & 2440/DEL./05) A.YS : 1999-2000 & 1996-97 2 INSTRUCTIONS, I.E. NO.5 OF 2008 DATED 15.5.2008. T HE INSTRUCTION IN PARA.11, STATES THAT IT WILL APPLY TO APPEALS FILED ON OR BEFORE 15 .5.2008 AND; THAT HOWEVER, THE CASES WHERE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE 15.5.200 8 WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERATING AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT IN T HE PRESENT CASE, THE CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 14.11.2007 AND THAT SO, INSTRU CTION NO.5 OF 2008 DATED 15.5.2008(SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE. IT HAS BEEN CO NTENDED THAT THE EARLIER INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 27.3.2000 (COPY PLACED ON RECORD) IS APPLICABLE AND THAT THIS INSTRUCTION IS APPLICABLE EVEN TO WEALTH -TAX MATTERS. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER CONTENDED THAT INSTRUCTION NO.5 OF 2007 DATED 16.7. 2007 (COPY PLACED ON RECORD) CONTAINS NO CHANGE; THAT CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.2 OF 2 4.10.2005 IS ALSO THE SAME. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE CIT(A)S ORDER WAS PASSED ON 14.11.0 7. THE CBDTS INSTRUCTIONS NO.5 DATED 15.5.08 IS TO APPLY TO APPEALS FILED ON OR AFTER 15.5.08. THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE 15.5.08, AS PER PARA.11 OF THE SAID IN STRUCTIONS, WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH AP PEAL WAS FILED. THUS, THE INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 27.3.2000 (COPY PLACED ON RECORD) IS APPLICABLE. THESE INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED A SPECIFIC MENTION THA T THEY WILL APPLY TO LITIGATION, INTER ALIA, UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT ALSO. THE CBD T INSTRUCTION NO.2 OF 24.10.05 (COPY PLACED ON RECORD) AND CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.5 O F 16.7.07 (COPY PLACED ON RECORD) DO NOT CONTAIN ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER. 5. IT THUS, CANNOT AT ALL TO BE SAID THAT THE REQUI REMENT REGARDING TAX EFFECT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO WEALTH TAX CASES AND THAT SO, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE GRIEVANCE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY WAY OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION, IS FOUND TO BE S HORN OF MERITS AND IS REJECTED AS SUCH. M.A. NOS.573 & 574/DEL./2010 (IN I.T.A. NOS.2439 & 2440/DEL./05) A.YS : 1999-2000 & 1996-97 3 7. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, FI LED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18.03.2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (A.D.JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED : 18.3.2011 SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPLICANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT, 4.CIT(A), KARNAL. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT