COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DIVYA PURI

order of income Tax Appellate Tribunal (henceforth th ‘Tribunl’) unde Section 260-A of the income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) on the following substantial questions of law:~ ‘Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in iaw in holding that the assessment has to be made on substantive basisin this case without appreciating the fact that a charge sheet under Prevention of Corruption Act and lndian Penal Code is pending as lodged by the CBI before trial Court, New Delhi in which it has been alleged by the CBI that ail the money properties and investments have been earned by - Honble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hcnble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ Appellant , Raipur ( Respondent S l l y, Oral Order t fe e a r

Shri V.K. Puri himse!f through illegal means and his wife and daughters or mere name-lenders?” ‘Whether the ITAT was justified in law in holding that the assessee who is the daughter 0f Shri V.K. Puri is the owner of these deposits when a case against Shri V.Kl Puri filed by the CBI is yet to be decided by the trial Court as to whether he is the owner of these deposits?” (2) 'Briefly stated, the facts as projected in the memo of appeal are that the assessee filed return on 31.07.2002 declaring total income of Rs.1,05109l—. Assesses derived income from interest. Assessment was completed on 31 3.2005 under Section 144 of the Act and total income was assessed at Rs.2,86,110/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,72,000/- on account of unexplained investments in Fixed Deposit Receipts, Term Deposit Receipts, bank deposits and deposits under Section 69 in PPF. Respondents filed appeal against the order of Assessing Officer before the CIT (Appeals) and the CIT (Appeals) confirmed the order. However, the appeal preferred by the assessee was atlowed by the Tribunal by the impugned order and addition was deleted. \6, (3) Shri Neelabh Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the tax effect in the instant case is Rs.67,342/- only, which is less than the minimum monetary limit of Rs.4,00,000/- nxed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (henceforth the ‘Board’) for the purpose of tiling appeal before the High Court as per the Instruction No.279 dated 24.10.2005 and the aforesaid instructions are binding upon the officers of the lncome Tax Department and because of the aforesaid reason, the appeal by the Revenue in the matter which invotves negligible tax effect is not maintainable.

(4) Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, iearned counsel for the appellant/Revenue has not disputed that the tax effect involved in this matter is less than the monetary limit fixed by the Board as per the referred circular. (5) Thus, in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the instructions of the Board, we do not deem it necessary to go into the merits of the case in view of the negligible tax effect involved in the matter. /(6)\‘

The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. /¥ o,,,__~ s so. ‘ Sci/- Dhirendra Mishra R.N. Chandrakar Judge i Judge