Malti Devi Chikara, Meerut vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationI.T.A. No. 179/Del/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which empowers the Central Board of Direct Taxes to fix monetary limits for filing appeals, binds the income-tax authorities; the Board's instructions fixing such limits are therefore binding on the Revenue's authorities, and an appeal by the department whose tax effect falls below the prescribed limit ought not to have been filed. Following the Delhi High Court's ruling that CBDT circulars fixing monetary limits apply to pending cases, the monetary limit prescribed by a later instruction applies to appeals already pending before the Tribunal, not only to cases filed after the instruction's date, so an appeal below the revised limit is to be dismissed without examining its merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ITO, Ward 1(4), Vs. Smt. Malti Devi Chikara, Meerut 381, New Mohanpuri, Meerut. GIR / PAN:AKVPD4947L
(Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri k Sampath, Adv. Shri V Rajkumar, Adv. Respondent by : Shri P. Dam Kanunjha, Sr. DR
Date of hearing : 16.03.2015 Date of pronouncement : 18.03.2015
ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM:
This appeal has been filed by Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Meerut dated 24.10.2011.
2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:
"1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5,55,932/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained investment in commercial building relying upon the valuation report prepared by Valuation Officer after taking into consideration all relevant documents and submissions of the assessee as well as all technical aspects relating to the construction. Cost of commercial building whereas the Ld. CIT(Appeal) was not a technical expert in this filed on page 17 of his order he had himself admitted that he is not a technical person to comment upon the report of Valuation Officer.
2 ITA No.4281/Del/2012 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in law in restricting the addition of Rs.24,000/- to Rs.12,000/- made by the A.O. on account of undisclosed rental income without giving any reasons.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored."
3. At the outset, Ld.A.R. submitted that tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.4,00,000/-, therefore, the department ought not to have filed this appeal in view of the circular issued by the CBDT and the provisions contained in Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act).
4. The ld. D.R., although supported the order of the Assessing Officer, but could not controvert this fact that tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.4,00,000/-.
5. After considering the submissions of the ld. D.R. and the material on record, it is noticed that Section 268A has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 01/04/99. The provisions contained in section 268A read as under:
"268A. (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue orders, instructions or directions to other income-tax authorities, fixing such monetary limits as it may deem fit, for the purpose of regulating filing of appeal or application for reference by any income-tax authority under the provisions of this Chapter.
3 ITA No.4281/Del/2012 6. It is noticed that the CBDT has issued Instruction No.5 of 2014 dated 10.07.2014, by which the CBDT has revised the monetary limit to Rs. 4,00,000/- for filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
7. It is not in dispute that the Board's instruction or directions issued to the income-tax authorities are binding on those authorities, therefore, the department ought not to have filed the appeal in view of the above said provisions mentioned in section 268A of the Act since the tax effect in the instant case is less than the amount prescribed for not filing the appeal.
8. Though Instruction No.5 dated 10.07.2014 mentions that limit of Rs.4,00,000/- will be applicable for cases filed after 10.07.2014 but the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Delhi Race Club Ltd. in ITA No.128/2008, order dated 03.03.2011 by following the earlier order dated 02.08.2010 in ITA No.179/1991 in the case of CIT Delhi-III v. M/s. P.S. Jain & Co. held that such circular would also be applicable to pending cases.
9. From the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it is clear that the instructions issued in the Circulars by CBDT are applicable for pending cases also. Therefore, by keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid referred to cases, we are of the considered view that Instruction No.5/14 dated 10.07.2014 issued by the CBDT are applicable for the pending 4 ITA No.4281/Del/2012
cases also and in the said instructions, monetary tax limit for not filing the appeal before the ITAT is Rs. 4.00 lakhs.
10. In view of the above, without going into merits of the case, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
11. In the result, appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed.
12. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th March, 2015.
Sd./- Sd./- (G. C. GUPTA ) (T.S. KAPOOR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER th Date: 18 March, 2015 Sp Copy forwarded to:- 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (A)-, New Delhi.
5. The DR, ITAT, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. True copy.
By Order
(ITAT, New Delhi).
S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 5/3 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 9,9, Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before the Second 3 JM/AM Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS 18/3/2015 Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement 18/3 Sr. PS/PS 7 File sent to Bench Clerk 18/3 Sr. PS/PS 8 Date on which the file goes to Head Clerk 9 Date on which file goes to A.R. 10 Date of Dispatch of order
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