Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which deleted additions of Rs. 18,15,787/- for undisclosed income and Rs. 73,84,020/- for unexplained assets (jewellery). The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence and submitted incorrect facts regarding the jewellery purchase dates.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, rendering the appeal non-maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to approach the Tribunal again if the tax effect is found to exceed Rs. 50 lakhs.
Key Issues
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT when the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, despite the appeal concerning additions for undisclosed income and unexplained assets.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘H’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI CHELLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the Pr. CIT(A), Delhi dated 22.12.2023 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :
“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.18, 15,787/- made on account of undisclosed income in the hand of the assessee.
2. The Ld.CIT(i\) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.18,15,787/- made on account of undisclosed income and ignoring the facts that assessee was failed to produce any documentary evidence in respect of expenditure made for income earned and proof of ownership of the property.
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the ease, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 73,84,020/- made on account of unexplained assets (Jewellery).
4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.73,84,020/- made on account of unexplained assets (Jewellery) and ignoring the fact that the assessee has submitted the incorrect facts before the IBS- VII, Chennai and Ld. CIT(A) both. The facts were factually not correct as the jewellery found in the lockers were purchased well before the dates declared by the assessee in the 'cash flow statement, therefore, the jewellery found in the lockers could not be commensurate with cash flow statement and hence it remains unexplained in the hands of the assessee.
5. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law.
That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.
7. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any/all of the ground(s) of appeal either before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.”
A perusal of the grievance of the revenue shows that the tax effect would be less than Rs. 50 lakhs, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019.
This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the revenue to approach the Tribunal as per the provisions of law, should it feel that the tax effect is more than Rs. 50 lakhs.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in is dismissed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 26.06.2024.