Shri Rameshbhai K.Prajapati,, Surat v. The Income tax Officer, Ward-7(3),, Surat

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : C BENCH : A HMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA J.M. & HONBLE SH RI N.S. SAINI A.M.) I.T.A. NO. 3527/AHD./2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-2002 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(3) SURAT -VS.- SHRI RAMEHBHAI K. PRAJAPATI SURAT (APPELLANT) (R ESPONDENT) & C.O. NO. 11/AHD/2005 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 3527/AHD./2004) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-2002 SHRI RAMESHBHAI K. PRAJAPATI SURAT -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(3) SURAT (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : N O N E DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. NEETA SHAH SR. D. R. O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.09.2004 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-V SURAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO DELETE ADDITION OF RS.1 36 000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CAS H CREDIT 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.2 LACS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNSUBSTANT IATED UNLOADING EXPENSES. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1 LACS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNSUBSTANT IATED SALARY EXPENSES. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N DIRECTING THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1 10 565/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNSUB STANTIATED TEMPO CHARGES EXPENSES. 5. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION OF RS.43 985/- TO RS.21 992/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF UNSUBSTANTIATED AND UNVOUCHED TRAVELLING EXPENSES. 2 3. ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING NEITHER ANYBODY A PPEARED FROM THE SIDE OF ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT RECEIVED. HOWEVER ON E ARLIER DATE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED ON RECORD THE WORKING OF TAX EFFECT WHICH IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. THE SAID WORKING IS AS UNDER :- 1. CASH CREDIT RS.1 36 000/- 2. UNLOADING EXPENSES RS.2 00 000/- 3. SALARY EXPENSES RS.1 00 000/- 4. TEMPO EXPENSES RS.1 10 565/- 5. TRAVELLING EXPENSES RS. 21 992/- TOTAL RS.5 68 557/- TAX @ 30% RS.1 70 567/- SURCHARGE @ 17% RS. 28 996/- _____________ RS.1 99 563/-. _____________ 4. ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID WORKING THE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST THAT SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS IN VIEW OF THE BOARDS CIRCUL AR THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT BE DISMISSED. 5. THE AFORESAID WORKING WAS SHOWN TO THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. SHE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. ADMITTEDLY THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS BELOW RS.2 LAKHS. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS NOT ED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. THIS BENCH VIDE ITS ORDE R DATED 10.6.2008 IN I.T.A.NOS.335 338 TO 341/LUC/08 IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS SHRI BRAHMANAND BHASIN HAS HELD THAT WHERE TAX EFFECT IN DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS DEPAR TMENT COULD NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL AS PER INSTRUCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT. IN THIS REGARD W E REFER TO FOLLOWING PORTION FROM THAT JUDGMENT: 10. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT IN ALL THESE APP EALS THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN RESPECT OF DISPUTE IN EACH YEAR IS LESS THAN RS.2 L AKHS. THEREFORE AS PER MONETARY LIMIT THIS IS COVERED BY THE LATEST INSTRUCTIONS I SSUED BY THE C.B.D.T. AS MENTIONED ABOVE AND ALSO BOARD'S INSTRUCTIONS NO 1979 DATED 2 7.3.2000 NO.1985 DATED 3 29.6.2000 NO.6 OF 2003 DATED 17.7.2003 NO.19 OF 2 003 DATED 23.12.2003 NO.5/2004 DATED 27.5.2004 NO.2/2005 DATED 24.10.20 05 AND NO.5/2007 DATED 16.7.2007 WHEREIN MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING DEPARTM ENTAL APPEAL IN INCOME-TAX MATTER AND OTHER CONDITIONS WERE SPECIFIED FOR FILI NG APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURT. ALL THESE INSTRUCTI ONS WERE SUPERCEDED AND FRESH MONETARY LIMITS WERE FIXED FOR THIS PURPOSE. THESE LIMITS CONTAINED IN INSTRUCTION NO 5/2008 DATED 15.5.2008. IN THIS REGARD THE REL EVANT PART OF INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN PARAS 3 4 & 5 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- '3. APPEALS WILL HENCEFORTH BE FILED ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT EXCEEDS MONETARY LIMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER:- SL. NO. APPEALS IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS.) 1. APPEAL BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2 00 000/- 2. APPEAL U/S. 260A BEFORE HIGH COURT 4 00 000/- 3. APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT 10 00 000/- 4. FOR THIS PURPOSE 'TAX EFFECT' MEANS THE DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN THE TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED AND THE TAX THAT WOULD HA VE BEEN CHARGEABLE HAD SUCH TOTAL INCOME BEEN REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE AGAINST WHICH APPEAL IS INTENDED TO BE FI LED (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'DISPUTED ISSUES'). HOWEVER THE TAX WILL NO T INCLUDE ANY INTEREST THEREON. SIMILARLY IN LOSS CASES NOTIONAL TAX EFF ECT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. IN THE CASES OF PENALTY ORDERS THE TAX E FFECT WILL MEAN QUANTUM OF PENALTY DELETED OR REDUCED IN THE ORDER TO BE AP PEALED AGAINST. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CALCULATE THE TAX EF FECT SEPARATELY FOR EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES I N THE CASE OF EVERY ASSESSEE. IF IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE THE DISP UTED ISSUES ARISE IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN PARA 3. NO APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN PARA 3. IN OTHER WORDS HENCEFORTH APPEALS WILL BE FILED ONLY WITH REFEREN CE TO THE TAX EFFECT IN 4 THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER IN CASE OF A COMPOSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH COURT OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH INVOLV ES MORE THAN ONE YEAR APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF ALL ASSES SMENT YEARS EVEN IF THE 'TAX EFFECT' IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY L IMITS IN ANY OF THE YEAR(S) IF IT IS DECIDED TO FILE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR(S) IN WHICH 'TAX EFFECT' EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED.' 11. EARLIER THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN JU GAL KISHORE ARORA VS. DY C.I.T. [2004] 269 I.T.R. 133 (ALL.) HELD THAT INST RUCTIONS OF C.B.D.T. ARE INTERNAL MATTERS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND ASSESSEE CANNOT OBJEC T TO THE FILING OF APPEAL DESPITE SUCH INSTRUCTIONS. IN THIS REGARD WE REPR ODUCE FROM THE JUDGEMENT AS UNDER:- 'AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD N OT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTION OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DATED MARCH 27 2000 WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT TH E INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REGARDING FILING OF A PPEALS ARE ONLY INTERNAL MATTERS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSE E CANNOT OBJECT TO FILING OF AN APPEAL DESPITE SUCH AN INSTRUCTION.' 12. HOWEVER OTHER HIGH COURTS HAVE TAKEN A DIFFER ENT VIEW AND THEY HAVE HELD THAT INSTRUCTIONS OF C.B.D.T. ARE BINDING ON THE OF FICERS AND THAT MONETARY LIMITS FIXED BY THE C.B.D.T. FOR FILING APPEAL SHOULD HAV E BEEN FOLLOWED. ON THAT BASIS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE WERE DISMISSED. IN TH IS REGARD WE CONSIDER IT PROPER TO REPRODUCE RELEVANT PART FROM THE FOLLOWING JUDGE MENTS. 13. IN THE CASE OF JOINT C.I.T. VS. PEERLESS DEVEL OPERS LTD. [2006] 287 I.T.R. (AT) 153 (SB) THE SPECIAL BENCH OF I.T.A.T. CALCUTTA O BSERVED AS UNDER:- 'THAT SINCE 1987 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES HAD NOT ONLY BEEN TAKING A CONSISTENT APPROACH OF INSTRUCTING ITS OFF ICERS NOT TO FILE THE APPEAL WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW THE MONETARY L IMIT BUT SUCH MONETARY LIMIT IS ALSO REVISED UPWARDS FROM TIME TO TIME. THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ONE LAKH OF RUPEES. THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE BOARD PRESCRIBING MONETARY LIMI T FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE VARIOUS FORUMS ARE BINDING ON THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. 5 14. IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. CAMCO COLOUR CO. [ 2002] 254 I.T.R. 565 THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 'CIRCULAR F. NO. 279/126/98-ITJ DATED MARCH 27 20 00 REFLECTED THE POLICY DECISION TAKEN BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIREC T TAXES NOT TO RAISE QUESTIONS OF LAW WHERE THE EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES WITH A VIEW TO REDUCE LITIGATIONS BEFORE THE HIGH COURTS AND THE S UPREME COURT. THE CIRCULAR IS BINDING ON THE REVENUE. AN APPEAL OR RE FERENCE CONTRARY TO THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED IN THE CIRCULAR WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURTS.' 15. IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. PITHWA ENGG. WORKS [2005 ] 276 I.T.R. 519 THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 'THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES BY ITS CIRCULAR DATED MARCH 27 2000 HAS TAKEN A POLICY DECISION NOT TO FILE REFER ENCES IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. THE CIRCULAR IS APPLICABLE EV EN TO THE OLD REFERENCES WHICH ARE STILL UNDECIDED. THE DEPARTMEN T CANNOT CONTEND THAT THE CIRCULAR IS BINDING ONLY WITH RESPECT TO T HE NEW CASES AND NOT WITH RESPECT TO THE OLD REFERRED CASES EVEN IF THE TAX IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. THE SAME POLICY FOR OLD MATTERS NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT.' 16. IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. DIGVIJAY SINGH [2007] 29 2 I.T.R. 314 THE HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 'COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT RAISED A PRELIMINARY OB JECTION ABOUT THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE APPEALS. ACCORDING TO HIM TH E TOTAL TAX EFFECT IN EVERY APPEAL IS AROUND RS. 2 000. HE INVITED THE AT TENTION OF HIS COURT TO NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE WEALTH- TAX ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT APPEAL COULD BE PREFERRED TO THE HIGH COURT IN CASES WHERE A DEBT OF WEALTH-TAX DOES NOT EXCEED RS. 25 0 00. HE INVITED THE ATTENTION OF THIS COURT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ZOEB Y. TOPIWALA [2006] 284 ITR 379 ; [2005] 199 CTR 656 WHEREIN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT TH E DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD DATED MARCH 27 2000 DIRECTING THE DE PARTMENT NOT TO RAISE QUESTIONS OF LAW WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS LE SS THAN RS. 2 LAKHS IS BINDING ON THE REVENUE. THE APPEAL WHICH WAS FILED HAVING TAX EFFECT LESS THAN RS. 7 000 WAS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINAB LE BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT BY HOLDING THAT THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE BOARD ARE BINDING ON THE DEPARTMENT. THE NEXT CASE RELIED UPO N BY HIM IS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- CAMCO COLOURCO. [2002] 254 ITR 56 5 ; [2002] 173 CTR 255 IN WHICH THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS REPRODUC ED THE CIRCULAR 6 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE DATED MARCH 27 2000 IN WHICH IT IS DIRECTED THAT APPEAL S UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WITH TAX EFFECT LESS THAN RS. 2 LAKHS SHOULD NOT BE PREFERRED. IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE SAID CIRCULAR IT I S MENTIONED THAT THE SAID CIRCULAR IS APPLICABLE TO WEALTH-TAX GIFT-TAX ESTATE DUTY ETC. IN THAT CASE ALSO THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE BOMB AY HIGH COURT BY HOLDING THE SAME AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. A NUMBER OF O THER JUDGMENTS WERE RELIED UPON BY COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT FOR S UPPORTING HIS ARGUMENTS ON THE SAID QUESTION INCLUDING CIT V. KE LVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. [2002] 256 ITR 1 WHICH IS A FULL BENCH JUDGME NT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT UCO BANK V. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) ; [1999] 4 SCC 599 AND CIT V. PITH WA ENGINEERING WORKS [2005] 276 ITR 519 (BOM). IN ALL THESE CASES APPEALS WERE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVE D IN THE APPEALS IS VERY LOW. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE TAX EFFECT I S LESS THAN RS.5 000 PER YEAR HENCE THE APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. HOWEVE R TO COMPLETE THE JUDGMENT WE PROCEED TO DECIDE OTHER GROUNDS.' 17. IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. ZOEB Y. TOPIWALA [2006] 284 I.T.R. 379 THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 'THE INSTRUCTION OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAX ES DATED MARCH 27 2000 REFLECTS THE POLICY DECISION TAKEN BY THE BOA RD NOT TO RAISE QUESTIONS OF LAW WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS WITH A VIEW TO REDUCE LITIGATIO N BEFORE THE HIGH COURTS AND THE SUPREME COURT. THE CIRCULAR IS BINDI NG ON THE REVENUE.' 18. THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. RAJASTHAN PATRIKA LTD. [2002] 258 I.T.R. 300 HELD THAT THOUG H NO APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED WHERE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN LIMIT PRESCRIBE D BUT THE HIGH COURT OUGHT NOT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OR REJECT REFERENCE. THE REL EVANT PORTION OF HEAD NOTES ARE AS UNDER:- 'HELD _ ALSO THAT IF IN SPITE OF ADMINISTRATIVE I NSTRUCTIONS IN A CIRCULAR OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES TO THE EFFECT THA T NO APPEAL SHOULD BE FILED WHEN THE TAX EFFECT IS NOT MORE THAN RS.50 00 0 THE DEPARTMENT PREFERS TO FILE AN APPEAL OR TAKE A REFERENCE TO TH E HIGH COURT ON SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS THE HIGH COURT OUGHT NO T TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OR REJECT THE REFERENCE. THERE IS NO INFIRMI TY IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OR REFERENCE ON THE MERITS.' 7 19. BUT NOW IN THE LATEST JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE AL LAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE TAX LIABILITY IS LESS THAN RS.5 LAKHS S UCH MATTER NEED NOT BE CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. IN THIS REGARD WE REFER PARAS 2 3 4 & 5 FROM THAT JUDGEMENT AS UNDER:- '2. THE APPEAL RAISES THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUE STION OF LAW:- 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED I.T.A.T. WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.90 000/- CLAIMED AS GIFTS RECEIVED FROM 8 PARTIES EVEN THOUG H THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE AFORESAID GIFTS ?' 3. THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IS STATED TO BE A COLONIZE R IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986- 87 HE RETURNED THE INCOME OF RS.29 890. HE FURTHE R SHOWED THE CASH CREDIT OF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.90 000 BEING SHOWN AS GIFTS. THEY WERE THE AMOUNTS SUPPOSED TO BE DONATED BY SOME EIGHT PERSON S. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.90 000 A ND CONSEQUENT TAX LIABILITY INCREASED WOULD BE RS.53 312. THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S). HOWEVER THE TRIBUNAL ENTERTAINED THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE AS SESSEE. THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE DONORS HAD NOT SHOWN THESE AMOUNT IN THEIR BALANCE SHEET WHICH WAS AT LEAST SEEN IN THE CASE OF ONE OF THE DONORS AND THE PERSONS CONCERNED WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE HE HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. AS AGAINST THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOTED THAT THE MEMORANDUM FOR GIFT WERE FILED I N EACH OF THESE CASES AND GIFT TAX ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE SAME WARD WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS BEING ASSESSED. THE TRIBUNAL THEREFORE OBSERVED THAT T HERE WAS NO DIFFICULTY FOR THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO KNOW FROM THE RECORD WHET HER THESE PERSONS WERE EXISTING OR NOT. BESIDES THAT AFFIDAVITS WERE ALSO FILED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL INTERFERED WITH THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SET ASIDE HIS ORDER AS WELL THAT OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. IT IS A CASE WHERE PERHAPS TWO VIEWS WERE POSSIB LE AND IT IS NOTED ABOVE THAT THE TAX LIABILITY IS RS.53 312. THE CENTRAL B OARD OF DIRECT TAXES HAS COME OUT WITH A CIRCULAR THAT WHERE THE TAX LIABILI TY IS LESS THAN RS.5 00 000 SUCH MATTERS SHOULD NOT BE CARRIED IN APPEAL. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS COURT SHOULD INTERFERE. OTHERWISE ALSO WE DO NOT FIND THAT THIS IS A CASE INVOLVING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW WHICH OUGHT TO BE ENTERTAINED.' 20. SINCE IN THE LATEST DECISION THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT APPEAL INVOLVING TAX EFFECT OF LESS THAN PRESC RIBED MONETARY LIMIT AS PER 8 INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE C.B.D.T. NEED NOT BE PUR SUED THIS JUDGMENET OF THE HON'BLE ALLAHABD HIGH COURT BEING LATEST IN TIME WO ULD BE BINDING ON THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT THE APPEALS IN THE CASES INVOLVING TAX EFFECT LESS THAN PRESCRIBED LIMIT FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 21. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE C.B.D.T. ARE BINDING ON SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES. IN THIS REGARD WE REFER TO THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN ELLERMAN LINES LTD. VS. C .I.T. [1971] 82 I.T.R. 913 (S.C); UCO BANK VS. C.I.T. [1999] 237 I.T.R. 889 (S .C); C.I.T. VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. [ 2002] 256 I.T.R. 1 (FULL BENCH DELHI ); C.I.T. VS. SOUNDARARAJA FINANCE LTD. [2006] 283 I.T.R. 559 (MAD.); BHARAT C ONSTRUCTION CO. VS. C.I.T. [2002] 258 I.T.R. 140 (RAJ.); C.I.T. VS. BLAZE ADVE RTISING (DELHI) PVT. LTD. [2002] 255 I.T.R. 46 (DELHI) AND HARSHENDU UPENDRE KAKA VS. I.T.O. AND OTHERS [2001] 249 I.T.R. 612 (BOM.). 22. AS A RESULT WE DISMISS ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE BEING AGAINST LATEST EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS OF 2008 ISSUED BY THE C.B.D.T. AND BELOW MANDATORY MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED THEREIN FOR FILING APPEAL S. HOWEVER IT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A DECISION ON MERITS OR ON LEGAL CONTE NTIONS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS. 7. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO TAX EFFECT IN D EPARTMENTS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS DEPARTMENT OUGHT NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL. AS THE APPEAL SO FILED IS AGAINST THE EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS WHICH ARE BINDING ON THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE WE DISMISS THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. 8. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT THE LEARNED CTT(A) HAS THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED AND APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED VARIOUS DETAILS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDING AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDING AND THEREAFTER THE ALLEGED UNE XPLAINED CASH CREDIT HAVE BEEN DELETED. I 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED UNLOADING EX PENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.2 00 000/- CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AN D BRANCHES OF THE BUSINESS AND METHOD AND MANNER IN WHICH THE BUSINESS IS BEING RU N AND DISALLOWANCE MADE BY LEARNED A.O. AMOUNTING TO RS.2 00 000/- HAVE BEEN D ELETED AND IN PARA 3 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED WITH THE CI TATION AND THEREFORE THIS GROUND OF THE APPELLANT BE DISMISSED. 9 3. THAT THE LEARNED A.O. HAS DISALLOWED THE SALARY OF RS. 1 00 000/- OUT OF PROVISIONS OF RS. 1 50 000/ AND THE SAME HAS BEEN A LLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISCUSSED IN PARA 4 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER AND CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS THE SAME HAS BEEN ALLOWED AGAINST WHICH T HE APPELLANT HAS FILED APPEAL BE DISMISSED. 4. THE LEARNED C1T(A) HAD ADHOC DISALLOWED TEMPO CH ARGES OF RA.1 10 565/- BEING 1/5 TH OF TOTAL TEMPO CHARGES OF RS.5 07 824/- ON UNWARN ED GROUNDS AND FINDINGS HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED CTT(A) AN D APPEAL FILED ON THIS GROUND BE SUMMARILY REJECTED. 5. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED RS 2L 992/- BEING HALF OF TRAVELING EXPENDITURE AND HALT AMOUNTING TO RA.21 992/- RETAI NED BY DIE LEARNED CIT(A) BE DELETED CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND BRANCHES OF BUSINESS AND PART AND SUBSEQUENT RE CORDS THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENT BE ALLOWED IN FULL. 6. THAT THERE IS NO ANY ALLEGATION OR FINDING THAT THE TRAVELLING EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN INCURRED AND IN ABSENCE OF THAT DISALLOWANCE M ADE BY LEARNED A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) AMOUNTING TO RS.21 992/- BE DEL ETED. 9. GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 4 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN REVENUES APPEAL (SUPRA) THESE ARE RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS THEREFORE DISMISSE D. 10. GROUNDS NO. 5 & 6 ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMING HALF OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.21 992/-. IN THE GROUNDS OF C.O. ITSELF IT IS MENTIONED THAT LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND BRANCHES OF BUSINESS AND PAST AND SUBSEQUENT RECORDS THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM IN FULL. AS AGAINST THIS THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS GIV EN COGENT REASON FOR CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.21 992/- THEREFOR E HIS ORDER BE UPHELD. 11. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.21 9 92/- VIDE PARA 10.4 WHICH READS AS UNDER :- 10.4. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSION AS MADE BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO DOUBT THAT LOT OF TRAVELLING AS REQUIRED TO LOOK AFTER THE BUSINESS INTEREST IN THIS KIND OF TRADE B UT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE 10 APPELLANT TO MAINTAIN AT LEAST SOME VOUCHERS SUCH A S RELATING TO TICKETS PURCHASED OR ACCOMMODATION AVAILED BY THE PEOPLE WH O TRAVELLED. IN THIS WAY IT IS FOUND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE AP PELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED COMPLETELY. I THEREFORE RESTRICT THE DIS ALLOWANCE AT 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES WHICH COMES TO RS.21 993/-. IN T HIS WAY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTRICTED TO RS.2 1 992/- AND THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.21 993/-. 12. FROM THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED SOME VOU CHERS RELATING TO TICKETS PURCHASED OR ACCOMMODATION AVAILED BY THE PEOPLE WHO TRAVELLED. THEREFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY CORREC T IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE AT 10% OF TOTAL EXPENSES WHICH COMES TO RS.21 992/-. WE THE REFORE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. GROUNDS NO. 5 & 6 OF CROSS OBJECTION ARE REJECTED. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WEL L AS CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 08.01.201 0 SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 08 / 01 / 2010 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE DEPARTMENT. 3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R. ITAT AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER LAHA/SR.P.S. DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDA BAD