Miss Lucy
← All judgments

K.P. Pouches Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal29 June 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The departmental appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal where the tax effect involved is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 5/2014, and that instruction (revising the limit to Rs. 4 lakhs) applies to pending appeals as well as future ones, following the jurisdictional High Court's view in CIT v. Delhi Race Club Ltd.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1 ITA No. 907/Del/14IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALDELHI BENCH: 'SMC ' NEW DELHIBEFORE SHRI S. V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERI.T.A .No.-907/Del/2014(ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09)

ACIT K.P. Pouches Pvt. Central Circle-8 Ltd. New Delhi vs 19, Manohar Park, (APPELLANT) Room No. 1 Ist Floor, New Rohtak Road New Delhi AABCK6527A

(RESPONDENT)

Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Robin Rawal, JCIT

Date of Hearing 25.06.2015 Date of Pronouncement 29 .06.2015

ORDER PER S. V. MEHROTRA, AM

The Department has filed this appeal against the order dated 29/01/2013 of CIT(A)- XXXII, New Delhi, in Appeal No. 647/10-11.

2. The notice sent to the assessee/respondent has returned unserved. Therefore, I proceed to decide this appeal ex-parte qua assessee-respondent. The Department has taken following grounds of appeal:-

"1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,08,532/- made by AO 2 ITA No. 907/Del/14

on account of undisclosed sales without examining and adjudicating upon the merits of the case.

2. Whether CIT(A) has erred in law and facts as well in not invoking the provisions of Section 250 (4) of the I.T. Act, which empowers Ld. CIT(A) to conduct further enquiry on the issues involved in this case.

3. (a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.

(b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/ all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal."

3. The Ld. DR fairly conceded that the tax effect in the present appeal is much less than Rs. 4 Lacs.

4. I have heard Ld. DR and perused the entire material on record. As per recent CBDT Instruction No. 5/2014 dated 10/7/2014, the monetary limit for filing appeal by the department before the ITAT has been revised to Rs. 4 lacs. Thus, the departmental appeals, involving tax effect below Rs. 4 lacs, are not maintainable before the ITAT.

4.1. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd. In ITA No. 128/2008, order dated 03/03/2011, by following the earlier order dated 2/8/2010 in ITA No. 179/1991 in the case of CIT Delhi-III Vs. M/s P. S. Jain & Co., has held that such instruction/circular would also be applicable to pending cases.

4.2. Admittedly the tax effect involved in the present appeal is below Rs. 4 lakhs. Therefore, in view of the revised instruction of the CBDT, referred to above, and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of Delhi Race Club Ltd., supra, the departmental appeal is not maintainable.

5. In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 29th of June 2015.

3 ITA No. 907/Del/14 Sd/-

(S. V. MEHROTRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:- 29 /06/2013

*R. Naheed*

Copy forwarded to:

1. Appellant

2. Respondent

3. CIT

4. CIT(Appeals)

5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Date

1. Draft dictated on 25.06.2015 PS

2. Draft placed before author PS 26.06.2015

3. Draft proposed & placed before the JM/AM second member

4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM/AM Member.

5. Approved Draft comes to the .06.2015 PS/PS Sr.PS/PS

6. Kept for pronouncement on PS

7. File sent to the Bench Clerk .06.2015 PS

8. Date on which file goes to the AR

9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.

10. Date of dispatch of Order.

4 ITA No. 907/Del/14

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