9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arma (Accountant Member) And Sushma Chowla (Judicial Member) For the Appellant : Neil Philip For the Respondent : M. M. Golvala ORDER Sushma Chowla (Judicial Member) Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), both dated 06.08.2010, relating to assessment years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 against order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The Revenue in both the appeals has raised identical grounds of appeal, which read as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting disallowance made by the AO of ₹ 6,97,723 for A.Y. 2006-2007 ₹ 6,37,882 for A.Y. 2007-2008 on account of proportionate interest expenses without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Both the appeals relating to the same assessee on identical issue were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience. However, reference is being made to the facts of ITA No.7057/Mum/2010 to adjudicate the issue. 4. The learned AR for the assessee, at the outset, pointed out that the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Instruction and it has been provided that the appeals shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:- S No Appeals in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (in Rs) 1. Before Appellate Tribunal 4,00,000/- 2. U/s 260A before High Court 10,00,000/- 3. Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/- 5.4. The revised monetary limit for filing the appeals before the appellate Tribunal was fixed at in excess of ₹ 4 lacs. Further, under the said Instruction, it was also directed that the Assessing Officer shall calculate the tax effect separately for every assessment year in respect of the disputed issues. In case of every assessee where, the disputed issue arises in more than one assessment year, it was directed that appeal could be filed in respect of such assessment year or years in which, the tax effect in respect of the disputed issue exceeded the monetary limit fixed. In other words and henceforth, the appeals ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matters where the tax effect is less than the limit prescribed. Even before this Instruction, CBDT has been issuing instructions, the last one being on 24th Oct., 2005 where the monetary limit has been fixed. In those instructions the only exception had been that in cases involving, substantial question of law of importance as well as in cases where the same question of law will repeatedly arise, either in the case concerned or in similar case, appeal should be filed without being hindered by the monetary limits. The present instructions seem even to limit the issues insofar as the same question of law or recurring issue except to the extent provided in para 5. On a proper reading of para 5 of the instructions it would be clear that a duty is cast on the AO that even if the disputed questions arise for more than one assessment year then an appeal should be filed only in respect of those years where the monetary limit as specified in para 3 of the instruction^. The exception, however, is carved out in respect of a composite order of the High Court or appellate authority. In other words where the High Court or Tribunal has passed a composite order in respect of the same assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xceeding ₹ 4 lacs were maintainable. In the present appeals filed by the Revenue, the monetary limit admittedly, is less than ₹ 4 lacs. In view of Instruction No.5 of 2014 which are applicable not only to the new appeals to be filed by the Revenue, but also to the appeals pending before the Tribunal, we dismiss all the appeals filed by the Revenue because of small tax effect. 6. In any case, the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case. The Tribunal in ITA No.7257/Mum/2008 relating to assessment year 2004-2005 and ITA No.7334/Mum/2008 relating to assessment year 2005-2006, vide consolidated order dated 27.10.2010 had adjudicated the issue of recomputation of the value of closing work-in-progress by attributing interest proportion to the work-in-progress. However, the case of the assessee before the authorities was that the valuation of work-in-progress had been done as per the Accounting Standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, and there was no merit in including the interest component in the valuation of closing work-in-progress. The Tribunal vide para 5 and 6 held as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
