Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6470 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
06-04-2011
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2004-2005
Appeal Filed On
25-02-2011
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO,AM M.A. NO. 44/PN/2011 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 933/PN/2008 A.Y. 2004-05 I.T.O. WARD 2(1) AURANGABAD APPLICANT VS. SHRI SHITALCHAND SUDHAKAR DAHALE, PLOT NO. 7, RACHANAKAR COLONY, STATION ROAD, AURANGABAD PAN ABIPD 0178 R RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI H.C. LEUVA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N. PURANIK O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, A.M. BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, ARISING OUT OF CONS OLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13 TH AUGUST 2010 IN ITA NO. 933/PN/2008 FOR A.Y. 2004-0 5, THE REVENUE SEEKS TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL O N THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD INASMUCH AS ON VERIFIC ATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE WAS RS. 2,03,684/- WHICH I S MORE THAN RS. 2.00 LAKHS. 2. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IN TERMS OF THE INSTRUCTION NO. 3/2011 DATED 0 9.02.2011 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT) THE MONETARY L IMITS FOR FILING OF DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN F IXED AT RS 3 LAKHS. IN OTHER WORDS, IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT OF THE ADDITIO NS DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS LESS THAN R S 3 LAKHS, NO APPEAL SHALL BE FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN SUCH CASES. ADMITTEDL Y, THE TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS RS. 2,03,684/- WHICH IS BELOW RS 3 LAKHS. M.. 44/PN/2011 SHITALCHAND S. DAHALE A.Y. 2004-05 2 3. WE ALSO FIND THAT AS PER THE RECENT DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO V SHRI ASHOK G. DHANDHA RIAI, MUMBAI IN ITA NO2460/MUM/2010 DATED 28.2.2011 THAT THE REVISED IN STRUCTIONS DATED 9.2.2011 (SUPRA) ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, AL THOUGH SUCH APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED ON A PRIOR DATE. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PRECEDENT THE CAPTIONED DE PARTMENTAL APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN FILED CONTRARY TO THE CBDT INSTRUCTIONS DATED 9.2.2011 (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) 318 ITR 149 AND CIT V PITHWA ENGINEERING WORKS 276 ITR 519 (BOM) FOUND IT APPROPRIATE TO DISMISS THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ON THE GROUND TH AT TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS 3 LAKHS, EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL WAS FILED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE CBDT INSTRUCTION DATED 9.2.2011 (SUPRA). THE FO LLOWING DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER IS WORTHY OF NOTICE: 5. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHHAJER PACKAGING & PLASTICS PVT. LTD. 300 ITR RELIED ON BY THE DR IS DISTINGUIS HABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. AT PARA 12 PAGE 184 OF THE DECISION IN THE CA SE OF CHHAJER PACKAGING & PLASTICS PVT. LTD. IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: OTHERWISE ALSO, PARAGRAPH OF THIS CIRCULAR ITSELF SAVES CERTAIN APPEALS FROM BEING OBSTRUCTED DUE TO FINANCIAL LIMITS. PARAGRAPH 3 REA DS: THE BOARD HAS ALSO DECIDED THAT IN CASES INVOLVING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW OF IMPORTANCE AS WELL AS IN CASES WHERE THE SAME QUESTION OF LAW WILL REPEATEDLY ARISE, EITHER IN THE CASE CONCERNED OR IN SIMILAR CASES, SHOULD BE SEPARATELY CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS WITHO UT BEING HINDERED BY THE MONETARY LIMITS. IT IS EVIDENT THAT, WHENEVER THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW, OR QUESTION OF LAW WHICH IS LIKELY TO RECUR IN FUTURE, THE DEPARTM ENT IS NOT PROHIBITED FROM FILING AND PURSUING APPEALS. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SAVING CL AUSE SAVES THE PRESENT APPEAL SINCE IT INVOLVES A QUESTION OF LAW REGARDIN G INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 275(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AND MORE PARTICULARLY THE ASP ECT OF MANNER IN WHICH THE LIMITATION SHOULD BE COMPUTED IN THE LIGHT OF THE S AID PROVISIONS. WE HAVE, THEREFORE, PROCEEDED TO HEAR THE ADVOCATES ON THE M ERITS. IN OUR OPINION, THE CASE OF CIT V CHHAJER WAS WITH RESPECT OF INTERPRETATION OF 275(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND HENCE CAME UNDER THE EXCEP TION CLAUSE UNDER THE CBDT CIRCULAR AND WAS NOT OBSTRUCTED BY THE MONETARY LIM IT OF RS 3 LAKHS PRESCRIBED BY THE CIRCULAR. THEREFORE THE CASE OF 300 ITR 180 IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF OUR CASE. FURTHER INSTRUCTION NO. 5 DT. 15.5.2008 FIXIN G THE MONETARY LIMIT AT RS 2 LAKHS IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF INSTRUCTION NO. 3 DATED 9.2.2011 WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENT ION. SINCE BOTH THE INSTRUCTION NOS. 5 & 3 ARE IDENTICAL, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V PITHWA ENGG. WORK WHICH DEALS WITH INSTRUCTION NO. 5 DT. 1 5.5.2008 SHALL EQUALLY APPLY TO THE PRESENT CASE WHICH FALLS UNDER LNSTRUCTION N O. 3 DATED 9.2.2011. FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V PITH WA ENGG. WORK WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN OUR VIEW, THE BOARDS CIRCULAR D T. 27 TH MARCH, 2000 IS VERY MUCH APPLICABLE EVEN TO THE OLD REFERENCES WHICH ARE STI LL UNDECIDED, WE DISMISS THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX EFFE CT IS LESS THAN 3 LAKHS. M.. 44/PN/2011 SHITALCHAND S. DAHALE A.Y. 2004-05 3 5. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT AS PER CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 3 DATED 9.2.2011 (SUPRA) THE TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS BELOW RS 3 LAK HS AS STATED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THIS M ISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 6 TH APRIL 2011 SD/- SD/- ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 8 TH APRIL 2011 ANKAM COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. ACIT, 3. CIT- KOLHAPUR 4. CIT(A)- KOLHAPUR 5. D.R. ITAT PUNE BENCH BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T PUNE
Mehul