9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, the Department ought not to have filed the appeal in view of the above mentioned section 268A since the tax effect in the instant case is less than the amount prescribed for not filing the appeal. 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. See CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd. [2011 (3) TMI 1488 - High Court of Delhi] - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 5562/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2015 - S V Mehrotra, AM And H S Sidhu, JM,JJ. For the Appellant : Smt Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri V Raj Kumar, Adv. ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.O. for Revenue. The AO. brought to tax the unaccounted income introduced by the assessee in the garb of job receipts. The A.O. proved with due diligence that the job receipts were not actually income on account of job receipts and the income was deemed income u/s 68 meaning thereby the assessee could not set off business loss against this income. He allowed the assessee to carry forward the business loss and determined tax liability on the deemed income. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A)-11 has erred in law and facts to hold that the assessee has already offered the income from Job Work for tax in its return of income. No doubt, the income has been offered for tax, but the source of the same has not been su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e circular issued by the CBDT and the provisions contained in the section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the order of AO, but could not controvert this fact that the tax effect in this appeal is less than ₹ 4,00,000/-. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and the material on record, it is noticed that section 268A has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 01/04/1999. The relevant provisions contained in section 268A read as under: 268A. (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue orders, instructions or directions to other income-tax authorities, fixing such monetary limits as it may deem fit, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference shall be deemed to have been issued under sub-section (1) and the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) shall apply accordingly. 6. It is not in dispute that the Board's instruction or directions issued to the other income-tax authorities are binding on those authorities, therefore, the Department ought not to have filed the appeal in view of the above mentioned section 268A since the tax effect in the instant case is less than the amount prescribed for not filing the appeal. 7. It is noticed that the CBDT has issued Instruction No. 5/2014 dated 10th July, 2014, by which the CBDT has revised the monetary limit to ₹ 4,00,000/- for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Keeping in view the CBDT Instruction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
