9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 884 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of commission expenses - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Assessee stated that the tax effect in this appeal is less than ₹ 4,00,000/-, therefore, the Department ought not to have filed this appeal - Held that - 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. Thus, from the ratio laid down by CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd. 2011 (3) TMI 1488 - High Court of Delhi by following the earlier order of CIT Delhi-III vs. M/s P.S. Jain & Co. 2010 (8) TMI 702 - DELHI HIGH COURT it is clear that the instructions issued in the circulars by CBDT are applicable for pending cases also. Therefore, 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 ₹ 4,00,000/-. - Decided against revenue.
Issues:
1. Admissibility of appeal by the Department regarding disallowance of commission expenses. 2. Jurisdiction of CIT(A) to allow deduction for a different assessment year. 3. Jurisdiction of CIT(A) to allow deduction for late payment of provident fund for a different assessment year. 4. Deletion of disallowances of various expenses by CIT(A) without proper proof. 5. Tax effect and filing of appeal by the Department based on CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. Issue 1: The Department appealed against the Order of Ld. CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of commission expenses. The Department argued that the appeal should have been dismissed based on judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal noted the tax effect was less than the prescribed amount for filing an appeal, as per CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on these grounds without delving into the merits of the case. Issue 2: The Department contested the CIT(A)'s direction to allow the deduction of commission for a different assessment year. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had exceeded his jurisdiction by directing deductions for a year not under appeal. Citing relevant cases, the Tribunal emphasized that appellate jurisdiction is confined to the assessment order of each year under appeal. The appeal was dismissed based on this jurisdictional issue. Issue 3: Regarding the deduction for late payment of provident fund, the Department challenged the CIT(A)'s decision for a different assessment year. The Tribunal reiterated that the CIT(A) had overstepped his jurisdiction by allowing deductions for a year not subject to appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of jurisdictional limitations. Issue 4: The Department raised concerns about the deletion of various expenses by the CIT(A) without proper proof. The Tribunal noted the failure of the assessee to substantiate expenses for business purposes and personal nature. The Tribunal highlighted judgments supporting disallowances for personal use expenses. However, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case due to jurisdictional issues and dismissed the appeal. Issue 5: The Tribunal addressed the tax effect and the Department's appeal based on the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of Board instructions on income-tax authorities. Considering the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal without assessing the case's merits. The decision was supported by relevant court precedents upholding the applicability of circulars to pending cases. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal on various grounds, including jurisdictional limitations, tax effect, and adherence to CBDT circular and statutory provisions. The decision highlighted the importance of following prescribed monetary limits for filing appeals and respecting appellate jurisdiction boundaries. The Tribunal's focus on procedural aspects led to the dismissal of the appeal without delving into the substantive merits of the case.
|
