B.Lakshmipathi Raj, Erode v. ITO, Erode

CO 104/CHNY/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 10421723 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN ABIPL5861B
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number CO 104/CHNY/2011
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant B.Lakshmipathi Raj, Erode
Respondent ITO, Erode
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 08-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 08-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 08-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 08-11-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 23-06-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1078/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II(4) ERODE. VS. SHRI B.LAKSHMIPATHYRAJ PROP: ANNAM ELECTRICAL COMPANY 72 N.N.PETTAI DHARMAPURAM. PAN:ABIPL5861B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & C.O. NO. 104/MDS/2011 [IN ITA NO.1078/MDS/2011] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI B.LAKSHMIPATHYRAJ PROP: ANNAM ELECTRICAL COMPANY 72 N.N.PETTAI DHARMAPURAM. PAN:ABIPL5861B VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II(4) ERODE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI K.E. B.RENGARAJAN JR. STANDING COUNSEL ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR ERODE ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 8 TH NOVEMBER 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 8 TH NOVEMBER 2011 ITA NO.1078/MDS/2011 & CO NO.104/MDS/2011 2 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT AS SESSMENT YEAR IS 2007-08. THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME- TAX(APPEALS)-I AT COIMBATORE DATED 15.03.2011 AND ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE THE ONLY GRO UND IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS E RRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 4.95 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF REPAYMENTS MADE TO ASSESSEES MOTHER SMT. S.SARASWATHI. 3. WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE ONE BEING THE ONLY GROUN D RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL THE TAX EFFECT INVOLV ED IS LESS THAN ` 3 LAKHS . SO ALSO THERE IS NO QUESTION OF LAW. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR THE REASON THAT THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES HAS RECENTLY ISSUED INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011 ITA NO.1078/MDS/2011 & CO NO.104/MDS/2011 3 DATED 9 TH FEB. 2011 TO THE EFFECT THAT WHEREVER THE DISPUTED AMOUNT OF REVENUE IS LESS THAN ` 3 LAKHS NO APPEAL IS TO BE FILED BEFORE THE ITAT. 4. THE FIRST INSTRUCTION NO.1093 DATED 28.10.1992 I SSUED BY THE BOARD HAD LAID DOWN SUCH LIMIT AT ` 25 000/-. THEREAFTER THROUGH INSTRUCTION NO. 1979 DATED 27.3. 2000 THE SAID LIMIT WAS ENHANCED TO ` 1 00 000/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE LIMIT WAS AGAIN INCREASED TO ` 2 LAKHS THROUGH INSTRUCTION NO.2 DATED 24.10.2005. 5. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS WHEN THE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL IN LIMINE ON THE GROUND OF NON-MAINTAINABILITY ISSUES WERE TAKEN UP BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. CAMCO COL OUR CO. (254 ITR 565) HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE REVENUE E FFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMI T THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THEREAFTER THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CWT VS. ANNAMALI ( 258 ITR 675) HELD THAT THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN THE LATEST I NSTRUCTION IS ITA NO.1078/MDS/2011 & CO NO.104/MDS/2011 4 APPLICABLE NOT ONLY TO THE APPEALS TO BE FILED AFTE R THE ISSUE OF SUCH INSTRUCTIONS BUT ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE PENDI NG APPEALS. THIS VIEW WAS AGAIN FOLLOWED BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AGENCIES (295 ITR 496). THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ALSO HAS HELD THE SAME VIEW IN TH E CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. PITHWA ENGG. WORK S (276 ITR 519) AND IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX VS. ZOEB Y. TOPPIWALA (284 ITR 379). 6. THUS THE COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT WHE RE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT APPEA LS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND HAVE ALSO HELD THAT THE LATEST SUCH INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE EVEN TO THE PENDING APPEALS. 7. THEREFORE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE FIND THAT THIS APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ITA NO.1078/MDS/2011 & CO NO.104/MDS/2011 5 8. AS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE THE CROSS CBJECTION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND THE CROSS OBJECTI ON FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON TUESDAY THE 8 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) ( DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI DATED THE 8 TH NOVEMBER 2011. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT ( 4) CIT(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.