9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1440 - AT - Income TaxMaintainability of appeal - treatment to Rental income received - Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XII treated as its business income as against income from house property as treated by the AO - Held that - In the present case, the tax effect involved in each of the four appeals filed by the Revenue in the month of February, 2014 is less than the monetary limit of ₹ 3 lakhs prescribed by the CBDT vide Instruction dated 09.02.2011 (supra) and the same being in contravention of the said instruction issued by the CBDT which have attained a statutory status as a consequence of the insertion of the section 268A in the Income-Tax Act, 1961 as held by the Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Oskar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (2) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT hold that the same are not maintainable. All these four appeals filed by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. - Decided against revenue.
Issues:
- Appeal against treatment of rental income as business income - Tax effect below monetary limit for filing appeals Analysis: The judgment pertains to four appeals filed by the Revenue against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) treating rental income received by the assessee company as business income instead of income from house property for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and examined the relevant records. It was noted that the tax effect in each appeal was below the monetary limit of Rs. 3 lakhs set by the CBDT for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Section 268A(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Finance Act, 2008, empowers the CBDT to determine monetary limits for filing appeals. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Oskar Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., it was emphasized that instructions issued by the CBDT on monetary limits have statutory status post the insertion of section 268A. The High Court held that failure to comply with these limits renders appeals not maintainable. In line with this legal position, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's appeals, falling below the prescribed monetary limit, were not maintainable and consequently dismissed all four appeals. The Tribunal's decision was based on the statutory authority granted to the CBDT under section 268A and the binding nature of the monetary limits set by the CBDT for filing appeals. By referencing the legal precedent set by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Tribunal underscored the mandatory nature of complying with the prescribed monetary limits. The judgment highlights the significance of adhering to statutory requirements and the consequences of non-compliance in terms of appeal maintainability. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT, in accordance with the legal principles established by relevant case law.
|
