The Commissioner of Income-tax-IV v. Oil Country Tubular Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-0612-12]

Metadata

Citation 2017-LL-0612-12
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax-IV
Respondent Name Oil Country Tubular Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 12/06/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags monetary limit • tax effect • set off
Bot Summary: 90 of 2017 ORDER: This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raises the following substantial question of law for consideration: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the tax involved is below the monetary limit fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes Perusal of the common order dated 27.02.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench B , Hyderabad, insofar as it pertains to I.T.A.No. 466/Hyd/2005, from which the present appeal arises, reflects that the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the short ground that the tax effect in the appeal under consideration before it was nil and therefore, the Revenue was not entitled to prefer an appeal where the tax effect was less than the limit prescribed by the CBDT in its instructions. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax IV, Hyderabad. This appeal was allowed by the Commissioner vide order dated 12.01.2005. Challenging the same, the Revenue preferred the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2 This being the factual situation, it cannot be stated that the tax effect in the appeal was lesser than the monetary limit fixed by the CBDT. According to the Revenue, the notional tax effect would be to the tune of over Rs.1.00 crore. Sri P.Vinod, learned counsel representing Sri K.Vasanth Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee, does not dispute the fact that the Tribunal s conclusion that the tax effect in the appeal is below the monetary limit is incorrect. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the common order dated 27.02.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench B , Hyderabad, in so far as it relates to I.T.A.No.

Judgment



THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD I.T.T.A.No.90 of 2017 ORDER: (per SK,J) This appeal by Revenue under Section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, Act of 1961 ), raises following substantial question of law for consideration: Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is correct in law in dismissing appeal on ground that tax involved is below monetary limit fixed by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT)? Perusal of common order dated 27.02.2008 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench B , Hyderabad, insofar as it pertains to I.T.A.No.466/Hyd/2005, from which present appeal arises, reflects that Tribunal dismissed appeal of Revenue on short ground that tax effect in appeal under consideration before it was nil and therefore, Revenue was not entitled to prefer appeal where tax effect was less than limit prescribed by CBDT in its instructions. Significantly, Tribunal mentioned that it had also perused record carefully. If that were so, Tribunal could not have missed fact that nil effect shown by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-I, Hyderabad, in his assessment order dated 31.03.2004 was due to fact that amount received by assessee from M/s. Grant Prideco to tune of Rs.28,87,84,782/- was adjusted against business losses of years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94, apart from assessment year 1996-97, as per consequential order dated 28.02.2001. In exercise of power under Section 147 of Act of 1961, assessing officer reopened assessment and determined income of assessee as Rs.28.08 crores before set off of carry forward losses. Aggrieved thereby, assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IV, Hyderabad. This appeal was allowed by Commissioner vide order dated 12.01.2005. Challenging same, Revenue preferred appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2 This being factual situation, it cannot be stated that tax effect in appeal was lesser than monetary limit fixed by CBDT. According to Revenue, notional tax effect would be to tune of over Rs.1.00 crore. Sri P.Vinod, learned counsel representing Sri K.Vasanth Kumar, learned counsel for respondent/assessee, does not dispute fact that Tribunal s conclusion that tax effect in appeal is below monetary limit is incorrect. He would however submit that departmental representative for Revenue conceded to this effect before Tribunal and assert that it is not open to Revenue to file appeal once its own representative conceded so before Tribunal. We are unable to accede to this submission as interest of Revenue cannot be sacrificed owing to wrong representation being made by departmental representative. appeal is accordingly allowed and common order dated 27.02.2008 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench B , Hyderabad, in so far as it relates to I.T.A.No.466/Hyd/2005, is set aside and matter is remitted to Tribunal for consideration afresh on merits and in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ___ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ___ JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD Date:12.06.2017 GJ Commissioner of Income-tax-IV v. Oil Country Tubular Ltd
Report Error