9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised by the assessee, the assessee was enjoying the benefit of S.80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as such the tax on the income is exempt even if the addition is sustained there will be no tax due as the tax effect would be ‘nil’. Keeping in view the decision rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. (2013 (10) TMI 1341 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT), the appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2950 & 2951/Del/2008, ITA No.582/Del/2009 - - - Dated:- 20-8-2015 - SHRI H.S.SIDHU AND SHRI O.P.KANT, JJ. For The Appellant : Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr.D.R. For The Respondent : Sh. Naveen Kumar Goel, C.A. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t identical orders in all these three appeals by following the order for the A.Y. 2002-03 in the assessee s own case and deleting the addition in dispute. Therefore, for the sake of convenience we are disposing of these three appeals by passing a consolidated order. 3. At the time of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also stated that the tax effect in these appeals is less than ₹ 4 lakhs and the appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable in view of Instruction No.5/2014 dt. 10th July, 2015. He further stated that even if the additions were sustained there would be no tax due and the tax effect would be nil as the assessee was enjoying the benefit of S.80B of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n perusal of the records, it appears that the assessee is enjoying the benefit of section 80P of the Act and as such the tax on an income is exempted. Even if the addition is sustained, there will be no tax demand as the tax effect will be nil. 6. In the case of CIT vs. Manglam Ricinus Ltd. (2008) 174 Taxman 186 (Del), the Hon ble Delhi High Court observed that in such type of cases, the exercise shall be merely academic exercise. 7. In the instant case, the Tribunal observed that in case the issue arising in the subsequent years and has tax effect, it is left open to be considered by the department. With this liberty, the appeal filed by the department was dismissed. The same appears reasonable in the peculiar facts and circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pending cases. 5.3. Thus from the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Delhi High Court, it is clear that the instructions issued in the circulars by CBDT are applicable for pending cases also. Therefore, keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases, we are of the considered view that Instruction no.5 of 2014 dt. 10th July,2014 issued by the CBDT are applicable for the pending cases also and in the present cases monetary tax limit is less than ₹ 4lakhs. 6. Even on merits, we find that in the impugned order the Ld. First Appellate Authority has deleted the additions in dispute by respectfully following the order for the A.Y. 2002-03 in assessee s own case, we reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order dt. 4.7.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 11591500/- which is only allowable as per the limits prescribed u/s 36 (1) (viii a) of the, IT Act. It has further been submitted that the AO has wrongly mentioned in the assessment order that the sum of ₹ 284.57 Lacs has been debited to the Profit Loss account; actually this sum has been debited to the provision for bad and doubtful debts. During appeal proceedings, the accounts of the appellant were attempted to be checked up viz-a-viz the assessment order and the submissions made by the appellant. Since the figures mentioned in the assessment order did not tally with the figures as per annual report, the AR of the appellant requested for the matter to be referred to the AO for examination of the books of accounts viz-a-v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO has also conveyed that the appeals may be decided on merits. 4.2 In view of the report of the AO and the order of CIT(A) Kamal dated 20.11.2006 in the case of the appellant himself for the AY. 2002-03, the addition made by the AO is deleted and the grounds of appeal are allowed. It is pertinent to mention here that the AR of the appellant has pointed out during appeal proceedings on 01.07.2008 that the order of the CIT CA) Kamal dated 20.11.2006 has been confirmed by the Hon'ble IT AT Delhi Bench and that the decision in this regard has been pronounced in the open court; i.e. the appeal of the Department against the order of CIT CA) has been dismissed. 5. Ground of appeal bearing nos. 5 pertains to addition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
