This is an appeal filed by the department against the order dated
26.4.2013 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2009-10. The grounds raised read as follows :-
1.
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,20,000/- made on account of notional rent in respect of farm house situated at Arthala, Distt. Ghaziabad, whereas Arthala is approximately 5 km from Delhi border & is part of NCR. It may be noted that village Arthala is actually the town of Narender Nagar falling between Delhi and Gaziabad.
2.
whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,000/- made u/s 24 (b) being interest paid on loan which was not found to be explainable by assesee during AY 2007-08.ITA No. 4214/Del/13 2
2. At the outset of hearing, it was pointed out by the learned AR for the assessee that the appeal filed by the department is non-maintainable on account of tax effect involved. It was submitted that the tax effect is below Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of the issues that are agitated in this appeal and in accordance with the terms of the Instruction No.3/2011 of 9 th February, 2011 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) wherein the monetary limit for filing the appeal in the income-tax matters before the Tribunal has been fixed at Rs.3,00,000/-, the departmental appeal deserves to be dismissed. In support of his claim reliance was placed on the following orders of the co-ordinate Bench and on the decision of Honble Delhi High Court to agitate that the departmental appeal deserves to be dismissed : (1) Order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench `A Mumbai in the case of ITO vs. Shri Ashok G. Dhandhariai in ITA No.2460/Mum./2010, dated 28 th February, 2011, for the Assessment Year 2005-06; & (2) Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench `F New Delhi in the case of ITO vs. M/s. PRS Securities Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.4447/2010, dated 25.03.2011 for the Assessment Year 2001-02. (3) Judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd. in ITA No.128/2008, dated 3 rd March, 2011..
3. The learned DR did not dispute the above contention of the Ld. AR regarding tax effect involved in the appeal is below Rs. 3,00,000/- nor was he in a position to point out any exempted situation for filing an appeal despite the tax effect being below the monetary limit. ITA No. 4214/Del/13 3
4. On careful consideration of the above submissions, we are of the view that the departmental appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is seen that the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd. (supra) has held as under:-
The tax effect involved in the present appeal is Rs.4,65,860/- . As per recent guidelines of the CBDT, appeal in those cases where the tax effect is less than 10 lacs, are not be entertained. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-III v. M/s. P.S. Jain and Co. being No.179/1991 decided on 2 nd August, 2010 has taken a view that such circular would also apply to pending cases.
4.1 In the present case admittedly the tax payable in respect of grounds of appeal by the Department is less than Rs.3 lakhs and as per revised Instruction of the CBDT No.3 dated 9.2.2011 wherein the CBDT has revised the filing limits for appeal filed before the Tribunal, High Court and Supreme Court as under:-
Before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal : Rs.3 lakhs, Appeals u/s 260A of the IT Act Before the Honble High Court : Rs.10 lakhs and Before the Honble Supreme Court : Rs.25 lakhs
4.2 Since in the present case the above revised instruction is fully applicable in view of the judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court (supra), hence in our opinion the Revenues appeal is not maintainable in view of the said Circular of the CBDT read with Section 268A of the I.T. Act 1961. Reference may also be made to the decision of Honble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel & Co. (2009) 317 ITR 386 (MP) on the issue. ITA No. 4214/Del/13 4
4.3 In view of the above, we hold that the appeal filed by the Department against the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), is contrary to the policy decision of the Department and as such the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed in limine.
5. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
6. This decision was pronounced in the Open Court on 20 th June, 2014. sd/- sd/- (B.C. MEENA) ( GEORGE GEORGE K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date 18 th June, 2014 *Veena Copy of order forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR By Order Asstt. Registrar, ITAT
