TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PER BENCH : ITA No.2099-2104/Mum/2013(AY 2005-06 to 2010-11): These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order CIT(A), for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11, in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the tax effect in the appeals of the revenue is less than ₹ 4 lakhs, which are not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 issued on 10-7-2014. 3. Ld. DR also agreed that the tax effect in these appeals of revenue are less than ₹ 4 lakhs. 4. In view of the recent Instruction No. 5/2014 issued by CBDT on 107-2014 revising monetary limits for filing of appeal before ITAT fixing the tax effect limit of ₹ 4 lacs, the same is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine. The only issue now remains before us is, whether, these appeals of revenue, which are below the prescribed limit of tax effect in view of the Board's Instruction No.5/2014 issued on 10-72014 revising the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before ITAT are maintainable or not. 5. We have considered the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding on the tax effect involved. Thereafter, in 2008, CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2008 dated 15-5-2008 was issued. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) (2010) 229 CTR (Bom) 77, interpreted the aforesaid Circular. The Circular was issued in supersession of all earlier instructions issued by the Board. The monetary limit was increased and appeals were to be filed under Section 260A, thereafter, only in cases where the tax effect exceeded ₹ 4 Lacs. Paragraph 11 of that instruction stipulated that it was applicable to appeals filed on or after 155-2008. It was further provided that in cases, where appeals were filed before 15-5-2008, they would be governed by the instructions on this subject which were operative at the time when such appeals were filed. The instruction was issued under section 268A(1) of the Act. The argument of the learned Counsel for the revenue in that case was, that the instruction issued on 15-5-2008 did not preclude the department from continuing with the appeals and/or Petitions filed prior to 15-5-2008, if they involved a substantial question of law of a recurring nature, notwithstanding the fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the CBDT Instruction no. 5 of 2008. Clause 10 of this circular indicates that monetary limits would not apply to writ matters and direct tax matters other than income tax. It further provides that where the tax effect is not quantifiable, the Department should take a decision to file appeals on merits of each case. Clause 11, again provides that the instruction would apply to appeals filed on or after ....2011 and appeals filed before ....2011 would be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeals were filed. 11. In our opinion, when a similar clause has been interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Madhukar Inamdar (Supra), the same principles must apply in the present cases also, as we have found that the instructions of 15-5-2008 is para-material with the instruction of 9-2-2011. 14. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Delhi Race Club Ltd. , decided on 3-3-2011, by relying on its earlier Judgement Commissioner Income Tax Delhi-III v. M/s P.S. Jain and Co. decided on 2-8-2010 has held that the CBDT circular raising the monetary limit of the tax effect to ₹ 10 L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actly identical to earlier instructions. The relevant circular issued by CBDT reads as under: 'Reference is invited to Board's instruction No 3/2011 dated 9-22011 wherein monetary limits and other conditions for filing departmental appeals (in income-tax matters) before Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court were specified. 2. In supersession of the above instruction, it has been decided by the Board that departmental appeals may be filed on merits before Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court keeping in view the monetary limits and conditions specified below. 3. Henceforth 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 Limits (in Rs) 1. Before Appellate Tribunal 4,00,000 2. Under section 260A before High Court 10,00,000 3. Before Supreme Court 25,00,000 It is clarified th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han the monetary limit specified above, the Commissioner of Income-tax shall specifically record that even though the decision is not acceptable, appeal is not being filed only on the consideration that the tax effect is less than the monetary limit specified in this instruction . Further, in such cases, there will be no presumption that the Income-tax Department has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issues. The Income-tax Department shall not be precluded from filing an appeal against the disputed issues in the case of the same assessee for any other assessment year, or in the case of any other assessee for the same or any other assessment year, if the tax effect exceeds the specified monetary limits. 7. In the past, a number of instances have come to the notice of the Bard, whereby an assessee has claimed relief from the Tribunal or the Court only on the ground that the Department has implicitly accepted the decision of the Tribunal or Court in the case of the assessee for any other assessment year or in the case of any other case for the same or any other assessment year, by not filing an appeal on the same disputed issues. The Departmental representatives/counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8A (1) of the Income-tax Act 1961.' 8. Considering the above judicial pronouncements, we found that these appeals of the revenue are not maintainable as the tax effect in these appeals are below ₹ 4 lakhs. Accordingly, we dismiss all these appeals of the revenue. ITA Nos.1752 to 1754/Mum/2013(AY 2008-09 to 2010-11) 9. These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. Common grounds been taken in all the years pertain to computation of disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D. 10. We have considered rival contentions and found that the AO has computed disallowance as per Rule 8D by treating entire investment made by the assessee without excluding strategic investment made in the group companies. It was contended by ld. AR that the investment was made as strategic investment for the purpose of business only, therefore, the investment made in the group concerns which is ₹ 11.30 crores in the A.Y.2009-10, ₹ 26.44 crores for A.Y.2008-09 and ₹ 11.30 crores in A.Y.2010-11, respectively, may be excluded. Ld AR also submitted that the Tribunal is taking consistent view to the effect that investme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
