ITO (TDS) Aayakar Bhavan Rohtak Gannaur, Vs. Veetee Fine Food Ltd. VPO Larsouli Teh. Sonepat
October, 12th 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH `H', NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT
AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 5534/Del/2012
ITO (TDS) vs. Veetee Fine Food Ltd.
Aayakar Bhavan VPO Larsouli Teh.
Rohtak Gannaur, Sonepat
PAN: AAACP 0658 C
Appellant by : Sh. J.P.Chandrekar, Sr.D.R.
Respondent by : None
PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 27.8.2012
of Ld.CIT(A), Rohtak pertaining to the Assessment Year 2009-10.
2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under:
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A),
Rohtak has erred in law in deleting the demand of Rs.2,04,966/-
(1,66,639+38,327) interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act, which was
created by A.O.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A),
Rohtak has erred on law and facts in treating the payment made to
COBCOR is not subject to TDS, ignoring the facts that CONCOR is a
company incorporated in 1988 under Companies Act whose income
is taxable s per the provision of the Act and, therefore, freight
payment to CONCOR is subject to TDS u/s 194C of the Act.
3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the
grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the
Moonigpa Finvest P.Ltd.
3. None was present on behalf of the assessee. We have heard Shri
J.P.Chandrekar, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue. On a query from the
Bench the Ld.Sr.D.R. vehemently contended that the tax effect in the case on
hand is more than the limit prescribed by the CBDT at the time of filing of the
appeal and that the fresh Circular of the CBDT clearly mentions that the tax
effect limit of Rs.4 lakhs is prospective in nature and hence the limits
prescribed in the Circular cannot be applied to appeals filed for the earlier
Assessment Years. It was contended that the limit applies to appeals filed
after the date of the Circular.
4. After hearing the Ld.Sr.D.R. and perusing the material on record we
hold as follows. The Tribunal, in the case of "DCIT vs. Sushila Saraogi (2014)
(11) TMI 294" ITAT Kolkata, after considering the precedents on the subject,
held that the Instruction no.5/14, issued by the CBDT on 10.7.2014 is
applicable to the pending appeals. The Tribunal followed the proposition laid
down in the judgements of various High Courts, including the two judgements
of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s PS Jain & Co. in
ITA 179/1991 dt. 2.8.2010 and in the case of CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd. dt.
3.3.2011. We respectfully follow the Co-Ordinate Bench Order. In the instant
cases, as the tax effect being below Rs. 4 lacs, we without going into the issue
on merits, dismiss the appeals of the Revenue in limine as not maintainable.
It is to be mentioned that the Ld.Sr.DR was unable to point out any exceptional
circumstances, mentioned in Board Instruction no.5 of 2014 that have led to
filing of this appeal, despite the fact that the monetary limit being below the
Moonigpa Finvest P.Ltd.
5. In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09th October, 2015.
(G.C.GUPTA) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 09th October, 2015
Copy forwarded to: -
5. DR, ITAT