IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH `G', NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
And
SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 5/Del/2013
Assessment Year: 2006-07
Income Tax Officer, vs. M/s Sab Properties (P) Ltd.,
Ward 7(1), Room No. 305, SAB House, 3/8,
CR Building, New Delhi Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi - 110092
PAN: AAJCS3631B
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Sh. BRR Kumar, Sr. DR
Respondent by : None
Date of Hearing : 10-02-2015
Date of Order : 10-02-2015
ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M.
This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated
23/10/2012 of Ld. CIT(A)-X, New Delhi.
2. The grounds raised in the appeal of the Department read as under:
1. "The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in cancelling penalty of
Rs. 3,27,500/- u/s. 271D of the Act.
2. The CIT(A) erred in concluding that there was reasonable cause
merely on the submission of the assessee as there was no urgency
evident from any material on record.
3. The appellant craves, leave or reserving the right to amend modify,
alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or
during the hearing of this appeal."
ITA No. 5/DEL/2013 (ITO VS. SAB PROPERTIES (P) LTD.) 2
3. Notice was sent to the assessee on the address given by it,
however, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for
adjournment is filed. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion
that no useful purpose would be served to adjourn the case again and
again. Therefore, we are deciding the Revenue Appeal's exparte qua
assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records available on
record. At the threshold we find that the 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 the section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to
be referred as the Act).
4. Ld. DR supported the order of AO, but could not controvert this fact
that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs. 4,00,000/-.
5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and the material
on record, it is noticed that section 268A has been inserted by the Finance
Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 01/04/1999. The relevant
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.
(2) Where, in pursuance of the orders, instructions or directions
issued under sub-section (1), an income-tax authority has not filed any
appeal or application for reference on any issue in the case of an
assessee for any assessment year, it shall not preclude such authority
from filing an appeal or application for reference on the same issue in
the case of
(a) the same assessee for any other assessment year; or
(b) any other assessee for the same or any other assessment year;
(3) Notwithstanding that no appeal or application for reference has
been filed by an income-tax authority pursuant to the orders or
instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1), it shall not be
lawful for an assessee, being a party in any appeal or reference, to
contend that the income-tax authority has acquiesced in the decision
ITA No. 5/DEL/2013 (ITO VS. SAB PROPERTIES (P) LTD.) 3
on the disputed issue by not filing an appeal or application for
reference in any case.
(4) The Appellate Tribunal or Court, hearing such appeal or
reference, shall have regard to the orders, instructions or directions
issued under sub-section (1) and the circumstances under which such
appeal or application for reference was filed or not filed in respect of
any case.
(5) Every order, instruction or direction which has been issued by
the Board fixing monetary limits for filing an appeal or application
for reference shall be deemed to have been issued under sub-section
(1) and the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) shall apply
accordingly."
6. It is not in dispute that the Board's instruction or directions issued to
the other income-tax authorities are binding on those authorities, therefore,
the Department ought not to have filed the appeal in view of the above
mentioned section 268A since the tax effect in the instant case is less than
the amount prescribed for not filing the appeal.
7. It is noticed that the CBDT has issued Instruction No. 5/2014 dated
10th July, 2014, by which the CBDT has revised the monetary limit to
Rs. 4,00,000/- for filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
8. Keeping in view the CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2014 dated 10th July,
2014 and also the provisions of section 268A of Income Tax Act, 1961, we
are of the view that the Revenue should not have filed the instant appeal
before the Tribunal. While taking such a view, we are fortified by the
following decisions of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court:
1. CIT vs. Oscar Laboratories P. Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 115 (P&H);
2. CIT vs. Abinash Gupta (2010) 327 ITR 619 (P&H);
3. CIT vs. Varindera Construction Co. (2011) 331 ITR 449 (P&H) (FB).
9. Similarly, the Hon'ble 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
the earlier order dated 02.08.2010 in ITA No. 179/1991 in the case of CIT
Delhi-III vs. M/s P.S. Jain & Co. held that such circular would also be
applicable to pending cases.
ITA No. 5/DEL/2013 (ITO VS. SAB PROPERTIES (P) LTD.) 4
10. Thus, from the ratio laid down by the Hon'bl 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 case, we are of the considered view that
Instruction No. 5 of 2014 dated 10th July, 2014 issued by the CBDT are
applicable for the pending cases also and in the said instructions, monetary
tax limit for not filing the appeal before the ITAT is Rs. 4,00,000/-.
11. In view of the above, without going into merit of the case, we dismiss
the appeal filed by the Revenue.
12. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10/2/2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
(J.S. REDDY) (H.S. SIDHU)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 10/2/2015
*SR BHATNAGAR*
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR, ITAT
TRUE COPY
By Order,
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
|
