Jyoti Metal And Allied Industries Pvt. ... vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationITA No. 3383/Del/2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The CBDT instruction fixing a monetary tax-effect threshold for filing departmental appeals, having statutory force under section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies to appeals pending on the date of the instruction, so an appeal by the Revenue whose tax effect falls below the prescribed threshold is not maintainable and is dismissed on that ground without examination of the merits. Where the assessee's appeal raises issues already decided by the Tribunal against the same assessee in other assessment years, and the assessee fairly concedes the identity of issues, the Tribunal will follow that earlier decision and uphold the first appellate authority's findings on the same disallowances, provided the first appellate authority has restricted the disallowances to a reasonable extent on the facts; the Tribunal will not interfere with such findings where the assessee has not fully supported the claimed expenses.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ITO Vs. M/s Jyoti Metal and Allied Ward-4(2), Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AABCJ3790 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
I.T.A .No.-3260/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2006-07)
M/s Jyoti Metal and Allied Vs. ITO Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(2), New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AABCJ3790 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Revenue by:-Sh. Vivek Kumar, Sr.DR. Assessee by:-Sh. Gautam Jain, CA. Date of Hearing: 05.01.2015 Order pronounced on: 23.03.2015 ORDER
PER I. C. SUDHIR, JM
ITA No. 3383/Del/2010 2. The Revenue has questioned the first appellate order on the following
grounds:
"1. The order of the learned CIT(Appeals) is erroneous & contrary to
facts & law.
ITA No. 3383 & 3260/Del/2010 2 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5,18,470/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act being the unexplained unverified purchase. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the existence of the supplier and genuineness of the purchase.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,40,000/- made by the AO by disallowing the consultation fees claimed against the income from House Property.
3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that no such expenses allowed to be adjusted against the income from House Property as per the provisions of section 24 of the I.T.Act.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs.2,28,000/- to Rs.39,200/- made by the AO by disallowing the salary.
4.1 The ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assessee had shown expenses to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- including salary of Rs.3,32,000/- against business receipts of Rs.5,18,470/-.
5. The appellant craves to leave to add, to alter, or amend any grounds of the appeal raised above at the time of the hearing."
2. At the outset of hearing the ld. AR with the assistance of the computation
filed, submitted that the total tax effect of the appeal is only Rs.3,18,282/-,
hence having tax effect below Rs.4,00,000/- the appeal is not maintainable as
per the CBDT instruction no. 5/2014 [F. No. 279/Misc. 142/2007 - ITJ (PT)]
dated 10.07.2014. A copy of the computation of the tax effect of the appeal has
also been supplied to the parties. The ld. AR submitted further that the above ITA No. 3383 & 3260/Del/2010 3
instruction is also applicable in the pending appeal and cited decision of the
Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Harbhajan Singh Kohli, ITA
No. 4343/Del/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) order dated 9.12.2012.
3. The ld. Sr. DR however placed reliance on the Assessment Order.
4. We find from the above cited order of the Tribunal that the Hon'ble
Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd. in
ITA No.128/2008 order dated 03.03.2011 by following its earlier order dated
02.08.2010 in ITA No. 179/1991 in the case of CIT vs. M/s P.S. Jain & Co. has
held that such CBDT circular would also be applicable to the pending cases.
There is also no dispute that as per section 268A of the IT Act, 1961, such
instruction of the CBDT has statutory force. We thus find that the present
appeal having tax effect below Rs.4,00,000/- has been preferred by the
Revenue in violation of the above instruction of the CBDT hence it is not
maintainable. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. ITA No. 3260/Del/2010
5. The assessee has questioned disallowances of certain expenses on
account of salary, travelling, telephone, conveyance, printing and stationery,
staff welfare, repair and maintenance sustained by the ld. CIT(A).
6. At the time of hearing the ld. AR fairly submitted that identical issues
have been decided by the Tribunal against the present assessee in the ITA No. 3383 & 3260/Del/2010 4
Assessment Years 2005-06 & 2007-08 vide order dated 31.10.2014 in ITA Nos.
1824 & 3473/Del/2010.
7. In view of above decision, we find that during the year under
consideration as well the ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowances in question
made by the AO to the reasonable extent, keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case and that the assessee was not able to support the
claimed expenses fully. We thus do not find reason to interfere with the finding
of ld. CIT(A) in this regard. The same is upheld. In result, grounds involving the
issues are rejected.
8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
9. In result, both the appeals are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/03/2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (J. S. REDDY) (I. C. SUDHIR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 23/03/2015 *AK VERMA*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free