TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t years 2003-04 to 2009-10 on the grounds as detailed in the grounds of the respective appeal whereas the assessee has preferred Cross-objections for the same assessment years. 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee Shri P.D. Nagar pointed out that the tax effect in the respective appeal, filed by the Revenue, is below prescribed monetary limit and on the issue of monetary limit, the appeals are covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Nathulal Jain in ITA No.475/Ind/2010 (A.Y. 2006-07), order dated 29.6.2011. This factual assertion of the learned counsel for the assessee was not controverted by the Revenue. 3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on file. In view of the above, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated 29.6.2011: Aggrieved by the order dated 3rd March, 2010 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the revenue is in appeal on the ground that learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,85,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 8,85,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained loan credit u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... val submissions of ld. representatives of both sides and perused the material available on record. Before coming to any conclusion, on the issue of tax effect, the Bench in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Shriram Nutrients Ltd. in ITA No.123/Ind/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03) vide order dated 28.10.2010 held as under: This appeal is by the revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A)- Ujjain, dated 16.12.2009 on the ground whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the assessment made by the A.O. as infructuous, without appreciating the fact that otherwise on 6.3.2006 (the date of issue of notice) the A.O. was empowered to issue notice u/s 148 for the A.Y. 2002-03, in view of the provisions of section 149(1)(a) read with section 151(1) of the IT Act, 1961? 2. During hearing of this appeal, we have heard Shri S.S. Deshpande, ld. Counsel for the assessee and Shri P.K. Mitra, learned Senior DR. The crux of argument is that the tax effect in the present appeal is below monetary prescribed limit, therefore, straight way the appeal of the revenue may be dismissed. The ld. Sr. DR Shri P.K. Mitra fairly admitted that the tax effect is below prescribed moneta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a the assessee and dispose of this appeal on the basis of material available in the file. 2. The first ground raised is that the learned first appellate authority erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,26,936/- made on account of disallowance of depreciation on the fixed assets. On questioning from the Bench about the tax effect, it was fairly pointed out that the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit. I have considered the submissions put-forth by the learned Senior DR and perused the material available on record. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 8,53,871/- on the fixed assets. The learned Assessing Officer based upon the comments of the auditors in the notes to accounts and the nature of the business, disallowed 50% of the depreciation claimed by the assessee which was worked out at Rs.4,26,936/-. Before the learned first appellate authority the submission of the assessee was that the fixed assets were duly reflected in the balance sheet during the relevant period and there was no new addition in the assets. The depreciation on all the assets was regularly allowed since the date of inclusion in the balance sheet. Even in the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will not include any interest thereon. In cases of penalty orders, the tax effect will mean quantum of penalty deleted or reduced in the order to be appealed against. In the present appeal, the total disputed addition is Rs.3,94,732/-, therefore, as agreed/canvassed by ld. representatives from both sides, the tax effect is below Rs.2 lakhs, the limit prescribed for filing appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed. Our view finds support from the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Shri J.S. Luthra (ITA No.712 to 715/Chd/2009) and ITO, Ward 2(2), Ropar vs. The Jhallian Kalan Pri. Coop Milk Produce Society Ltd., Jhallian Kalan Distt. Ropar (ITA No.721/Chd/2009). Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, facts and the judicial pronouncements (supra), this appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. Representatives of both sides on 6.10.2009. In the light of the above, this ground of the revenue is having no merit, therefore, the stand of the learned CIT(A) is affirmed conseqently, this ground of the revenue is dismissed. 4. The next ground raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of both the parties at the conclusion of hearing on 1.12.2009. In the aforesaid case, the Tribunal has passed a detailed order, therefore, without going into the merits of the case and respectfully following the aforesaid decision, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court in the presence of learned representatives of both the sides at the conclusion of hearing on 26th May, 2010. In view of the above, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. representatives of both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 28.10.2010. 4. However, the CBDT vide instruction no.3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 revised/raised the monetary limit for filing the appeal by the department as under: S.No. Authority Monetary limit (In Rs.) 1 ITAT 3,00,000/- 2 Appeal under section 260A before High Court 10,00,000/- 3 Supreme Court 25,00,000/- The above instructions are applicable to the appeals filed on or after 9.2.2011, issued u/s 268A(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As far as the merit of the case is concerned, it has already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Inamdar (HUF) wherein it was held that the Circular will be applicable to the cases pending before the Court either for admission or for final disposal and held that Instruction No. 3 dated 9.2.2011 is applicable for the appeal preferred by the revenue and dismissed the same on tax effect by further considering the decision in the case of Living Stones Jewellery Private Limited vs. DCIT; 31 SOT 323. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue on the issue of tax effect/monetary limit. 4. There is uncontroverted fact that the tax effect in the aforesaid appeals is below prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal in the aforesaid order has already considered various judicial pronouncements including from Hon ble Apex Court High Courts along with the circulars of the CBDT including the latest circular No.3/11 dated 9.2.2011, as per which, the monetary limit for filing the appeal was enhanced. In view of these facts, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed being not maintainable. 5. So far as the Cross-objections filed by the assessee are concerned, the learned counsel for the assessee Shri P.D. Nagar did not press the same, therefore, thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
