9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1153 - AT - Income TaxRejection of claim of deduction u/s.80IA - prescribed monetary limit fr filling appeal - Held that - On query from the Bench, the Ld. DR could not point out any of the exceptions as provided in the Circular as that this is a loss case having tax effect more than the prescribed limit, which should be taken into account,or that this is a composite order for many assessment years where tax effect will be more than the prescribed limit as per para 5 of above instructions, or that this is a case, where, in the case of revenue, where constitutional validity of the provision of the Act or I.T. Rules 1962 are under challenge,or that Board s order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or that Revenue Audit Objection in the case has been accepted by the Department and the same is under challenge. The Ld. DR could not point out any of the exceptions as provided above. Accordingly, this being a low tax effect case, the appeal of the revenue dismissed in limine without going into merits. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of claim of deduction under Section 80IA for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05. 2. Maintainability of the Revenue's appeals based on the low tax effect as per CBDT instructions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Claim of Deduction under Section 80IA: The core issue in these appeals was the rejection of the claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05. The learned CIT(A) had directed the allowance of the claim, noting that the appellant had filed the return along with the audit report in response to a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had initially disallowed the claim on the grounds that the audit report was not filed with the original return. However, the CIT(A) found merit in the appellant's argument that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act that mandates the audit report and related documents to be furnished only with the original return. The CIT(A) held that the A.O. should have considered the details provided by the appellant before rejecting the claim and directed the allowance of the deduction under Section 80IA. 2. Maintainability of the Revenue's Appeals Based on Low Tax Effect: The respondent-assessee's representative presented a working sheet showing the tax effect for the years in question, which was Rs. 1,19,278 for A.Y. 2002-03, Rs. 2,54,058 for A.Y. 2003-04, and Rs. 2,82,832 for A.Y. 2004-05. It was argued that these amounts were below the threshold for filing appeals as per the CBDT's Instruction No. 5/2014, which sets the tax effect limit at Rs. 4,00,000 for appeals before ITAT. The Revenue's representative, Smt. Sonia Kumar, acknowledged that the tax effect calculations were subject to verification but did not dispute the low tax effect. The Tribunal referred to the ITAT Indore decision in ACIT-1(2), Indore Vs. M/s. Pithampur Auto P. Ltd., where it was held that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed limit are not maintainable. The Tribunal also cited the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT Vs. M/s. P. S. Jain & Co., which emphasized the need to reduce litigation where the tax effect is minimal, and the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Sureshchandra Durgaprasad Khatod (HUF), which applied the monetary limits to pending cases. The Tribunal concluded that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT's instructions and various judicial precedents. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue in limine without delving into the merits, consistent with the objective of reducing litigation with minimal tax effect. Conclusion: The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect, as prescribed by the CBDT's Instruction No. 5/2014. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80IA, emphasizing that the audit report's timing of submission did not invalidate the claim. The judgment aligns with the broader judicial trend to minimize litigation in cases with negligible tax impact.
|
