9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 400 - AT - Income TaxMonetary limit for maintaining the appeal of Department - Rectification of mistake - HELD THAT -In the instant case, we find that the appeal was filed by the Revenue on 11.02.2019 and therefore, the present appeal was not filed pursuant to special order of the CBDT dated 16.09.2019 and as the matter didn t fall in any exception as so prescribed by the CBDT in its earlier circular dated 8.8.2019 and the special order doesn t apply in the instant case, the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Coordinate Bench on account of low tax effect in light of CBDT s circular dated 8.8.2019. We find that both CBDT Circular no. 23 of 2019 and special order dated 16.09.2019 were not in existence and thus not part of the record at the time when the matter was heard on 20.08.2019 or at the time of passing of order by the Tribunal on 22.08.2019 and therefore, non-consideration of subsequent CBDT Circular and the special order so passed by the CBDT is not a mistake apparent from record which can be rectified within the narrow compass of section 254(2) of the Act. Miscellaneous application so filed by the Revenue is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed in light of aforesaid discussion.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of CBDT Circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. 2. Application of special order exempting cases involving bogus LTCG/STCL through penny stocks from monetary limits. 3. Consideration of CBDT Circular no. 23 of 2019 and special order dated 16.09.2019 in pending appeals. 4. Rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue 1: Interpretation of CBDT Circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals The Revenue filed a miscellaneous application against the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 156/JP/2019, contending that the Tribunal did not appreciate the findings of the AO regarding accommodation entry of ?1,16,15,493 in the form of LTCG. The Revenue argued that despite the tax effect being below the limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals, the order should be recalled based on the exception to monetary limits specified in CBDT Circular No. 23 of 2019. The Revenue relied on the decision of the Ahmedabad Benches of the Tribunal in similar cases to support its position. Issue 2: Application of special order exempting cases involving bogus LTCG/STCL through penny stocks from monetary limits The AR argued that the Tribunal decided the appeal in favor of the assessee based on the CBDT Circular dated 08.08.2019, which increased the monetary limit for maintaining departmental appeals to ?50.00 Lacs. The AR emphasized that the appeal was disposed of before the issuance of CBDT Circular no. 23 of 2019, which exempted penny stock cases from monetary limits. Citing a similar case decided by the Jaipur Benches of the Tribunal, the AR contended that the misc. application should be dismissed as the matter was already decided based on the existing circular at the time of the appeal. Issue 3: Consideration of CBDT Circular no. 23 of 2019 and special order dated 16.09.2019 in pending appeals The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular no. 23 of 2019 and the special order dated 16.09.2019, emphasizing that a special order is required for appeals in cases involving organized tax evasion through penny stocks. It was clarified that the special order exempts cases from monetary limits for filing appeals. The Tribunal held that the appeal, filed before the issuance of the special order, did not fall under the exception prescribed by the CBDT Circulars and was rightly dismissed based on the existing circular at the time of the appeal. Issue 4: Rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The Tribunal concluded that the CBDT Circular no. 23 of 2019 and the special order dated 16.09.2019 were not part of the record at the time of hearing or passing the order on the appeal. Therefore, the non-consideration of these subsequent circulars and special orders did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record that could be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. The miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue was deemed not maintainable and dismissed accordingly. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved and the Tribunal's interpretation of the CBDT Circulars and special orders in determining the outcome of the appeal.
|
