ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARMAN SINGH DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

ITA 4670/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 November 2019AY 2013-144 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 appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular that enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal, and the tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(Appeals) which deleted an addition made by the AO on account of unexplained jewellery. The Revenue's grounds of appeal questioned the CIT(A)'s reliance on old wealth-tax returns and a specific circular for explaining the source of jewellery.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect and the applicability of recent CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not specified

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C” New Delhi

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

Hearing: 25.11.2019

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, A.M. 1. This appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-24, New Delhi in relation to assessment year 2013-14 on the following grounds:

1. “The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 92,07,084/- made by the AO on account of unexplained jewellery found and seized during search.

ACIT vs. Harman Singh Dhingra/ I.T.A.No.4670/Del/2016/A.Y.2013-14 Page 2 of 4

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in relying on the wealth-tax returns of 1989-90, having no details of jewellery for explaining the jewellery found and seized in FY 2012-13.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that circular no. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 is liable for explaining the source of jewellery also, apart from being applicable to seizure of jewellery. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

We have heard the learned CIT (D.R.), who has pointed out the tax effect involved in this appeal, is below monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT. We find that the CBDT vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019 [F.No.279/ Misc.142/ 2007-ITJ (Pt)] by amending para 3 of CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 has enhanced the monetary limit for filing of appeal before Tribunal to Rs.50 lakhs and has also removed the anomaly in para 5 of said Circular No. 3/2018. We find that the present case does not fall within the exceptions clause 10 of said CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable as

per above Circular No. 17/2019, hence dismissed. This Circular is applicable to all pending appeals as clarified by CBDT letter dated 20.08.2019 [F. No. 279/Misc./M-93/2018-ITJ] and in the light of judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT, Jaipur v.

Meenakshi Modi SLP (Civil) Diary No. 25076 of 2019-dated 16.08.2019 wherein the Hon`ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of ACIT vs. Harman Singh Dhingra/ I.T.A.No.4670/Del/2016/A.Y.2013-14 Page 3 of 4 Revenue, as tax involved was less than Rs. 2 Crores. However, the Revenue is at liberty to approach to this Tribunal for recalling this order, if it is comes to the notice of the AO that the tax effect is more than the monetary limit provided under above Circular or the appeals is fall within ambit of the exceptions provided under the said Circular.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is stands dismissed.

The order pronounced in the open court on 25.11.2019

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →