ACIT, CIRCLE- 36(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN SAWHNEY, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3648/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 August 2021AY 2014-155 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was primarily because the tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the ITAT.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 74,31,496/-. The Revenue argued that the addition was justified due to abnormal wastage in fruits and vegetables sold, despite separate additions for unaccounted cash and stock.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT given the tax effect and the applicability of CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Per Anadee Nath Misshra, AM (A) This appeal by Revenue is filed against the impugned order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, New Delhi, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 20.12.2017 for Assessment Year 2014-15. The grounds of appeal are as under: -

1.

1. “The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,31,496/- merely on the ground that when separate addition is already made on unaccounted cash of Rs. 7,76,450/- and unaccounted stock of Rs. 72,23,450/- there is no locus standi to make separate GP addition without appreciating the fact that even such addition of these items in gross profit do not compensate for 300% abnormal wastage Page 1 of 5 ITA No.-3648/Del/2018 Shri Bharat Bhushan Sawhney shown in fruits and vegetables sold amounting to Rs. 6,82,22,260/- which is abnormal in comparison to growth of sale of only 20% and in comparison to previous year loss of only Rs. 2,16,15,370/- and also explanation given in this regard of heavy rainfall as the cause of such wastage is untenable as the assessee is not grower of fruits and vegetables but merely a vendor who secures such fruits and vegetables in cold storage and in this circumstances addition of GP was justified. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brijbhushan Lal Praduman Kumar vs. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 524 and State of Kerala Vs. C. Velukutty [1996] 60 ITR 239. Further reliance is also placed on the decision of Delhi ITAT E-Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Sunder Chemical and Agarbati Works Pvt. Ltd. [2015] 146 Taxman 11 (Delhi) and ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Jagan Nath Gurbachan Singh Vs. ITO [2001] 73 ITJ 878.

2.

Notwithstanding, the tax effect is also above the monetary limit as prescribed by the CBDT circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, therefore, further appeal is recommended in this case.” (B) At the outset, it was brought to our notice at the time of hearing, by learned Senior Departmental Representative (“Sr. DR”, for short) for Revenue; that tax effect in this appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000/-. Vide recent CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with earlier CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, minimum threshold limit of tax effect for filing of appeals by Revenue in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) has been enhanced to Rs. 50,00,000/-. In a subsequent Page 2 of 5 ITA No.-3648/Del/2018 Shri Bharat Bhushan Sawhney clarification issued by CBDT vide F.No. 279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ, dated 20/08/2019, it has been clarified by CBDT that the aforesaid revised monetary limit is also applicable to all pending appeals in ITAT. In view of the foregoing, it was submitted by Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue, that this appeal is not maintainable. He did not press the appeal. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed being not pressed; and also being not maintainable having regard to aforesaid CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with aforesaid CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 in the light of aforesaid clarification dated 20/08/2019.

(C) Before leaving, we clarify that Revenue will be at liberty to approach Income Tax Appellate Tribunal U/s 254(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961; seeking recall of this order and, for restoration of this appeal if it is found that appeal of Revenue is not covered by aforesaid CBDT Circulars dated 08.08.2019 and 11.07.2018.

(D) In the result, this appeal by Revenue is dismissed. Our decision was orally pronounced in the Open Court in the presence of learned Sr. DR, after conclusion of hearing on 23.08.2021. Now, this written order is signed today on 23/08/21.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →