Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs Jindal Saw Ltd.

In this appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (''Act'') against the impugned order dated 22nd August 2014 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (''ITAT'') in ITA No. 3228/Del/2007 for the Assessment Year 2004-05, two issues have been raised viz., (i) the upholding by the ITAT of the deletion by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] of an addition of Rs. 12,29,159 made by the Assessing Officer (''AO'') with respect to the payment of the employees'' contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI beyond the due date and (ii) the correctness of the order of the ITAT sustaining the decision of the CIT(A) that while computing the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act the amount of Rs. 58,41,674 should not be excluded from the eligible profits.

It has been pointed out at the outset by Mr. Piyush Kaushik, learned counsel for the Respondent Assessee, that the net tax effect in relation to the two issues raised by the Revenue is only Rs. 4,81,080 which is far less than monetary limit set by the Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi by its Instruction No. 5/2014 dated 10th July 2014 for the filing of appeals by the Revenue.

The Respondent Assessee has handed over a note showing the actual tax effect. It has been pointed out, and without any contradiction by learned counsel for the Revenue, that the net tax effect of Rs. 21,09,215 indicated in the memo of appeal is actually the figure given in the notice of demand which includes tax of all other issues and not confined to two issues urged in the appeal.

The Court is satisfied that in terms of the Instruction No. 5/2014 of the CBDT, the Revenue ought not to have preferred the present appeal.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.