BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AND QUESTION OF LAW
Brief Facts and Question of Law:
This appeal by the Department and the cross objection by the assessee are directed against the order dated 21/01/2010 of the Ld. CIT (A) Bareilly. The question of law arose in this case was that under the circumstances of the case, whether commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Bareilly was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO at Rs. 12 lakh u/s 69A of the IT Act 1961.
CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE
The contention of the assessee was that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.4,00,000/-, therefore, the department ought not to have filed this appeal in view of the circular issued by the CBDT and the provisions contained in Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act).
CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE
The Revenue supported the order of the Assessing Officer, but could not controvert the fact that tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.4,00,000/-.
HELD BY ITAT, NEW DELHI
After hearing the rival contentions, ITAT held that, Section 268A has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 01/04/99, thus the department ought not to have filed the appeal as per section 268A of the Act since the tax effect in the instant case is less than the amount prescribed for not filing the appeal. It also further noticed the CBDT has revised the monetary limit to Rs. 4,00,000/- for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Keeping in view the CBDT Instruction No.5 of 2014 dated 10.07.2014 and also the provisions of Section 268A of Income Tax Act, 1961, we are of the view that the Revenue should not have filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal .While taking such a view, we are fortified by the following decisions of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court:-
