Ita/2/2021 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Hycron Electronics

REPORTABLE/NON-REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 15[th] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA. ITA NO. 2 of 2021 Between:- PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA. …APPELLANT (BY SH. VINAY KUTHIALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS. VANDANA KUTHIALA, ADVOCATE.) AND M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS, VILLAGE BATED, BAROTIWALA, TEHSIL BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR …. RESPONDENT. (SH. CHANDRANARAYAN SINGH, ADVOCATE) __________________________________________________________________ This appeal coming on for admission before notice this day, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, delivered the following: J U D G M E N T By way of instant appeal, the appellant seeks to assail order dated 11.02.2020, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘ITAT’), Chandigarh in ITA No. 715/Chd./2019. 2. Respondent herein, (for short ‘assessee’), declared Rs.25,98,91,180/- as income in the ITR filed for the A.Y. 2015-2016. Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (for short ‘Act’) was completed on 30.10.2017 and income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 29,27,51,617/- by making following additions: i. Addition of Rs.13,79,767/- on account of disallowance of interest u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D. disallowance of interest u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D. ii. Addition of Rs.3,12,44,216/- on account of loan from ex-partner as income under section 41(1) of the Act; from ex-partner as income under section 41(1) of the Act; iii. Addition of Rs.2,36,456/- on account of expenditure incurred on repair of building. incurred on repair of building. iv. Addition of Rs.6,71,504/- on account of loss on retiring asset sold. retiring asset sold. 3. Assessee assailed above noted order of A.O before CIT(A) by way of appeal No. IT/198/17-18/SML and the same was allowed in respect of amounts detailed at serial number ii to iv above and further addition of Rs.8,68,744/- was deleted from additional amount mentioned at serial number i above. 4. The revenue challenged the order dated 15.02.2019 of the CIT(A) before the ITAT, Chandigarh. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed vide impugned order assailed in the instant appeal. 5. The grievance of the appellant herein is that the ITAT Chandigarh had wrongly proceeded to dismiss the appeal. The revenue has thus, sought adjudication from this court on alleged substantial question of law as reflected in para 7 of instant appeal. 6. Noticeably, the revenue seeks to assail the impugned order only on the issue of deletion of the addition of Rs. 8,68,744/- made u/s 14A of the Act on the ground that the same was against CBDT’s Circular No. 05/2014. 7. In view of the extent of challenge brought before this court the involved tax effect is only to the tune of Rs. 2,68,441/-. It is submitted on behalf of appellant that though the tax effect is less than the prescribed limit for filing appeal before this court, but the case of revenue was saved by para 10(b) of CBDT’s Circular No.17/2019 as the effect of impugned order was implied declaration of CBDT’s Circular No.05/2014 as illegal and ultra vires. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 9. The controversy can be summed up in narrow encompass. The issue for adjudication is whether the exemption Clause 10 (b) of Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8.8.2019 issued by the CBDT is applicable to facts of the case. 10. Perusal of impugned order passed by the ITAT reveals that it has not declared CBDT’s Circular No. 05/2014 either as illegal or ultra vires. The findings recorded by the ITAT are only on interpretation of the contents of said circular and as such we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the appellant. 11. Circular No.17/2019 dated 8.8.2019 issued by the CBDT, reads as under: 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 9. The controversy can be summed up in narrow encompass. The issue for adjudication is whether the exemption Clause 10 (b) of Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8.8.2019 issued by the CBDT is applicable to facts of the case. 10. Perusal of impugned order passed by the ITAT reveals that it has not declared CBDT’s Circular No. 05/2014 either as illegal or ultra vires. The findings recorded by the ITAT are only on interpretation of the contents of said circular and as such we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the appellant. 11. Circular No.17/2019 dated 8.8.2019 issued by the CBDT, reads as under: “Circular No. 17 of 2019 Date – 8[th] August, 2019 Further Enhancement of Monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and –SLPs/appeals before Supreme Court Amendment to Circular 3 of 2018 – Measures for reducing litigation. Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11[th] July 2018 has been replaced by circular No. 17/2019 dated 8[th] August 2019 to enhance Monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and SLPs/appeals before Supreme Court for reducing litigation. The Assessing Officer shall calculate the tax effect separately for every assessment year in respect of the disputed issues in the case of every assessee. If, in the case of an assessee, the disputed issues arise in more than one assessment year, appeal can 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. No appeal shall be filed in respect of an assessment year or years in which the tax effect is less than the monetary limit. Further, even in the case of composite order of any High court or appellate authority which involves more than one assessment year and common issues in more than one assessment year, no appeal shall be filed in respect of an assessment year or years in which the tax effect is less than the monetary limit. In case where a composite order/judgment involves more than one assessee, each assessee shall be dealt with separately.” 12. It is not in dispute that the above noted Circular No. 17/2019 is extension of Circular No. 3/2018 issued by the CBDT whereby certain modifications have been made in the original circular especially in respect of enhancement of revision of monetary limits for appeals/SLPs in income tax matters. Thus, the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeal before this court is 1,00,00,000/-, whereas the tax effect in instant case is much less than the prescribed limit. The instant appeal, therefore, is clearly not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. It is not in dispute that the above noted Circular (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge 15[th] December, 2021 (GR) (Satyen Vaidya) Judge