C.I.T. vs. CHANDRA SINGH BHADIRIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/17/2000HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01002576200008 April 2009Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, while noting that the appeal was filed by the Revenue on February 8, 2000, and the tax effect in the case was Rs. 39,636/-, considered Instruction No. 5/2008 dated May 15, 2008, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The instruction stipulated monetary limits for filing appeals and specified conditions under which adverse judgments should be contested irrespective of tax effect. The Tribunal observed that the tax effect in this case was a negligible amount of Rs. 39,636/- and that the circumstances enumerated in Clauses 8 & 9 of the Instruction No. 5/2008 did not exist. In view of the binding instructions of the Board and the negligible tax effect, the Tribunal was of the opinion that there was no justification to proceed with the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of negligible tax effect, without going into the merits of the case. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur, appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated September 27, 1999. The ITAT had deleted an addition of Rs. 41,883 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the assessment year 1995-96. The AO had treated this amount as undisclosed income of the assessee, Shri Chandan Singh Bhadoria, for the block period, as the assessee failed to file a return for assessment year 1995-96 despite a search and seizure operation at his residence in August 1996. The assessee had filed his return for assessment year 1995-96 declaring an income of Rs. 41,883. The appeal was filed by the Revenue on February 8, 2000.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer treating the income relatable to the assessment year 1995-96 as undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period as per the provisions of Section 158BB(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the assessee. However, the ITAT's deletion of the addition implies acceptance of the assessee's position before the Tribunal. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Assessing Officer made the addition as per the provisions of Section 158BB(1)(c) of the Act because the assessee did not file his return for the assessment year 1995-96, even though he had a taxable income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 158BB(1)(c),Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
,E?®"E»,.T ~i/ -?5T '<ii<<iW4, »T|I'M'IS, fsicii'yy '<:w^( ^l^tli ^affim ^'IT'^fi D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIR^NDRA MISHRA, & HON'BLE SHRI R.N^IhANDRAKAR, JJ i.T.A.rl o.170f2000 Appellant Revenue Respondent Assessee Commis^ioner of Income Tax, Raipur IVersus Shri Ch^ndan Block N<|i. Bhilai. Singh Bhadoria, .2/D, Street No.6, SectorNo.

IORDER (Passed 0)1 9" April, 2009) Per Dhirendra Mishra.J Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao, le rned counsel for the appellant. The appellant has filed Income Tax Act on the followincj t|iis appeal under-Section 260A of the substantial question of law: anU "Whether on the facts case, the learned Tribuna) addition made by the A{ income relatable to the undisclosed income of the! as per the provisions Income Tax Act, 1961?" in the circumstances of the was justified in deleting the jssessing Officer treating the Issessment year 1995-96 as assessee for the block period j)f Section 158(l)(c) of the ^rra^-" ^<p?^t'i^fl'^ra-iicii't'^—FS/9S—n/zoos—1,00,

nr s<' ^5[ '-qi^ld^, ^^y'l<o, rs«ni'M'J,< ~iI^(^(ft:iW ^TSSi*t ^H^TCi^pl ^WW ^i i asse^see

02.

Briefly stated, facts of 4 operation was carried out in August, 1996. Consequently, | Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short| of block assessment. The 1998 and declared his income ai; 1995-96. However, he did nj< assessment year 1995-96. in th| to show cause as to why his al undisclosed income. Upon fai explain, the Assessing Officer n] on the account of undisclosed ir| ofAnnexure -A. ie case are that search and seizure |he residence of the assessee during |a notice under Section 158BC of the 'the Act") was issued for the purposes filed his return on 25 January, Rs.41,883/- for the assessment year lot file his return of income for the ^se circumstances, he was called upon )ove income should not be treated as |ure of the assessee to satisfactorily |ade an addition of the above amount jcome for the year 1995-96 vide order

03.

Aggrieved by the above 01 before the Income Tax Appell; allowed the appeal and deleted dated 27.9.1999. 04. Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, Revenue submits that the Ass provisions of Section 158BB(l)l |der, the assessee preferred an appeal |te Tribunal and the learned Tribunal ihe addition vide orderof Annexure-B learned counsel appearing for the ^ssing Officer made addition as per ):) of the Act as the assessee did not file his return for the assessmeijit year 1995-96, even though he had taxable income. a" W-4II51" ..--llWfRWt—fS/95—I1/2008—1,00,000. Tnl -4i<4ld<4, a-al'y'16, fs«yiiyy,< an^^T^R^i ^H •3- <»>w(d<fl-<iWRJf 4ft^ TiWSR

05.

We have heard learned admission. counsel for the revenue/appellant on 06. Before entering into the] consider the case in the li^ht 15.5.2008 issued by the Centilal 268A Of Act.

07.

The Central Board of Dir^c instructions to the income-tax from time to time. The Boal 15.5.2008, in supersession of income-tax authorities regardinjg for filing departmental appeals] Courts and Supreme Court. Ins): limits, Instruction No.4 defines 8 & 9 mention the conditions, contested irrespective of the tax|

08.

Clauses No. 3, 4, 8 and 15.5.2008, are reproduced as u "3, Appeals will henceforth effect exceeds monetary limi^ merits of the case, we propose to of Instruction No.5/2008 dated Board of Direct Taxes and Section jct Taxes (in short "the Board") issues ^uthorities by way of issuing circulars 1-d, vide Instruction No.5/2008 dated ?he earlier instructions, instructed the the monetary limits and conditions before the Appellate Tribunals, High ;|:ruction No.3 deals with the monetary tax effect, whereas Instructions No. jn which adverse judgments are to be effect. tlhe @ of the Instruction No.5/2008 dated Ider: pe filed only in cases where the tax given hereunder:- 5-1raifi7 < t35»l!<-i<l<W-<i<i.lli4—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. 's^r "4l<<ld'4, t9^1^<is, fs<<niyi< sn^v ^^<* ^^Rs +i<i[<'t<fl-< iwi-fl' ^f fe^ A«sit ^rsjfer aii^i s/. No. 1. 2. 3. Appeals in matters Jncdme-tex Appeal before Tribunal 4ppellate Appeal under sectii^n 260A before High Court Appeal before Court upreme Monetary Limit (InRs. 2,00,000 4,00,000 10,00,000

4.

For this purpose, 'tax eff^ tax 0/7 the total income asses chargeable had such total in\ income in respect of the issi\ be filed (hereafter referred tax will not be include any int notional tax effect should 6e] penalty orders, the tax effect\ or reduced in the order to be lct' means the difference between the \sed and the tax that would have been t'ome been reduced by the amount of |e against which appeal is intended to as 'disputed issues'). However, the (eresf thereon. Similarly, in loss cases taken into account. In the cases of Iwill mean quantum of penalty deleted ^ppealed against. tb

8.

Adverse judgments relatin^ to the following should be contested irrespective of the tax effect. (a) Where the Constitu^onal Act or Rule are undek (b) Where Board's ordeli has been held to be validity of the provisions of an challenge. t, Notification, Instruction or Circular y/ega/ or ultra vires. CTfl€t'F^Btona'iirefW5Hi!:pri°i—l-s/95—11/2008—i,oo,(

IS 75E[ ^ll^ld'4, ©Tll^'IS,fs«rlWi< v II* ^il^l ^ltfiql -s <¥)|<<ECT<(i*^ •RI*1f?l "^ 1^£^ 'ifr SlRlH 31^5! (c) Where revenue Au\ accepted by the Depi 'it obj'ection in the case has been 'rtment. ff//4g

9.

The proposal for 136 of the Constitution b^ cases, besent to the Research), New Delhi an\ Petition shall be in constl Justice." Section 268A, which was] deals with filing of the appeal o| tax authorities. The above pro1 retrospective effect from 1 Apr| Tax Act is reproduced as under: Special Leave Petition under Article fore the Supreme Court should, in all Directorate of Income-tax (Legal & d the decision to file Special Leave Itation with the Ministry of Law and inserted by the Finance Act, 2008, application for reference by income- ision has been made applicable with , 1999. Section 268A of the Income "268A. Filing of appeal income-tax authority. ^r application for reference by frdm (1) The Board may, instructions or directions fixing such monetary lim purpose of regulating fili reference by any income-t of this Chapter. (2) Where, in pursuance directions issued under \ authority has not filed time to time, issue orders, |to other income-tax authorities, fte as it may deem fit, for the i[ig of appeal or application for t^x authority under the provisions of the orders, instructions or ^ub-section (1), an income-tax \any appeal or application for i.ferwfwga ..®T! iio—FS/95—11/2008—l,fl0,000. '^sf "41<41d^, ^Tll^l'c, ^«'ll'My,< ici gn^?r^q7(^°ii3^P: qipiferaHwraf ^TSJSCi reference on any issue i^ assessment year, it shal^ filing an appeal or appli[ /ssue in the case of- (a) the same assessee ifor any other assessment year; or (b) any other assess^ assessment year. (3) Notwithstanding j reference has been fili pursuant to the orders under sub-section (1), it 4 being a party in any ap^ the income-tax authority the disputed issue by not| reference in any case. (4) The Appellate or reference, shall have n directions issued undi circumstances under whi reference was filed or not (5) Every order, instrudfions issued by the Board fixi appeal or application for been issued under sub-s\ sub-sections (2), (3) and 09. The instant appeal has Indisputably, the tax effect in th the case of an assessee for any not preclude such authon'ty from ation for reference on the same for the same or any other no appeal or application for by an income-tax authority instructions or directions issued hall not be lawful for an assessee, eal or reference, to contend that has acquiesced in the decision on filing an appeal or application for Tribu^ial or Court, hearing such appeal ^gard to the orders, instructions or ^r sub-section (1) and the i^h such appeal or application for filed in respect ofany case. or direction which has been 'pg monetary limits for filing an ^ference shall be deemed to have ^ction (1) and the provisions of [4J shall apply accordingly." belen filed by the Revenue on 8.2.2000 ^ matter is Rs.39,636/-. !^pi!^rai(iw T—FS/95—1 1 /2008—l ,OG,OCO.

li l!a;> s ^ 2-c' •~\ ~S^( '^W\vi^, ®T|I'M'R,fs|<rliy'j,< <nwn «»*<i« '*i<ifd<il-t 'wRff 4 'fs^t TI»R?R ^T STRfH dfl^

10.

Learned counsel for th^ appellant fairly submits that the circumstances enumerated in No.5/2008 dated 15.5.2008, do| into consideration that the tai negligible amount of Rs.39,63) instructions of the Board, we justification to proceed with thj having negligible tax effect.

11.

Thus, in view of the latt Section 268A of the Act, we do| merits of the case. Accordinit negligible tax effect. However, there shall be ncj Dhirendra Mishra Judge Clauses 8 & 9 of the Instruction not exist in the present case. Taking effect, in the instant case, is the ?/- and keeping in view the binding are of the opinion that there is no e instant appeal pending since 2000 >st Instruction dated 15.5.2008 and not deem it necessary to go into the ly, we dismiss this appeal having order as to costs. R.N. Chandrakar Judge

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →