9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (5) TMI 1012 - AT - Income TaxMonetary limit for filing the Appeal - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Revenue appealed that CIT(A) erred in deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee contended that tax effect in the appeal is below prescribed monetary limit, therefore, straight way, the appeal of the revenue may be dismissed HELD THAT - The bench in ACIT VERSUS M/S. SHRIRAM NUTRIENTS LTD. 2010 (10) TMI 1109 - ITAT INDORE held, the income assessed and the tax involved is below monetary prescribed limits, therefore, without going into merits of the case on the primary objection of monetary limit, the appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed . CBDT has revised/raised the monetary limit for filing the appeal by the department - ITAT - Rs 300000; u/s 260 before HC - Rs 10,00,000; Before SC - Rs 25,00,000. Such instructions are applicable to the appeals filed on or after 9.2.2011, issued u/s 268A(1). As far as the merit of the case is concerned, it has already been examined by the ld. CIT(A) by keeping the provisions of sec. 275(1)(a). Since the appeal of the assessee was decided by the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 4.11.2004, consequently, the penalty proceedings were supposed to be disposed of by 31.3.2006 whereas the same was decided vide order dated 22.4.2009. In view of this fact, the order was rightly quashed, consequently, we find no infirmity in the stand of the ld. CIT(A). The same is upheld.
Issues:
1. Appeal against order deleting penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) for Rs. 2,32,780. 2. Tax effect below prescribed limit justifying dismissal of revenue's appeal. 3. Disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets and direction to allow carry forward of losses. 4. Revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the department. Issue 1: The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) for Rs. 2,32,780. The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in overlooking the provision of sec. 275(1A) of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal considered the submissions and material on record, including the tax effect. The Bench referred to a similar case to support the dismissal of the appeal based on the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal upheld the decision to dismiss the revenue's appeal on this ground. Issue 2: In various cases, including one involving disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets and direction to allow carry forward of losses, the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal consistently dismissed the revenue's appeals based on this ground, supported by relevant judicial decisions and the revised monetary limits issued by the CBDT. The Tribunal emphasized that without meeting the monetary limit criteria, the appeals could not proceed, irrespective of the merits of the cases. Issue 3: The Tribunal addressed cases where disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets and the direction to allow carry forward of losses were contested. In each instance, the Tribunal considered the submissions, factual findings, and relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal relied on precedents and legal principles to affirm the decisions of the CIT(A) and dismiss the revenue's appeals. The Tribunal emphasized the duty of the Assessing Officer to apply relevant provisions for determining taxable income, even if the assessee did not claim certain benefits. Issue 4: The CBDT revised the monetary limits for filing appeals by the department, applicable from a specified date. The Tribunal noted the revised limits and their applicability to appeals filed after the effective date. Regarding the merit of the cases, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) based on the provisions of sec. 275(1)(a) and the timeline for disposing of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the decisions of the CIT(A) and upheld them. In conclusion, the Tribunal consistently dismissed revenue's appeals due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit, irrespective of the case's merits. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to the revised monetary limits for filing appeals and upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) based on relevant legal provisions and precedents.
|
