Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI O.P. KANT
ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM The Department has filed this Appeal which is emanate from the Order dated 04.3.2013 of Ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2008-09.
The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under:- i) That the Ld .CIT (A) has grossly erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of investment made in one of the assessee's companies, namely M/s Umkal Healthcare Pvt Ltd no', appreciating the fact that the additions were made by the AO on the basis of voluntary surrender statement by Dr.Umesh Gupta in which he had admitted that he had introduced his own income earned through undisclosed sources in the guise of share capital/share application money. ii) That the Ld .CIT (A) has grossly erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of investment made in one of the assessee's companies, namely MIs Umkal Healthcare Pvt Ltd not appreciating the fact that the assessee could not prove the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transactions and hence were voluntarily surrendered at the time of Search proceedings. iii) That the Ld .CIT (A) has grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the additions made are based on material gathered by the AO and that the assessee was not justified in retracting his statement recorded at the time of search. iv) That the Ld .CIT (A) has grossly erred in restricting the addition made by the AO on account of personal element towards usage of telephone, car and travelling expenses to 10% as against 20% disallowed by the AO. v) That the Ld .CIT (A) has grossly erred in deleting the addition made by the AO ) account of personal element towards conveyance expenses amounting to Rs. 18785/-. vi) That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in deleting the addition made by the AO summarily accepting the submissions of the assessee and by passing a cryptic, unreasoned, nonspeaking order. vii) That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. viii) The appellant craves to add, amend or modify the grounds of appeal at any time.
2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Chart showing the tax effect, mentioning therein that the addition made by the AO is Rs. 30,78,098/- and tax on the same comes to Rs. 9,23,430/-, which is less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lacs as fixed by the CBDT. Therefore, he requested that the Appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed on this account.
On the other hand, Ld. DR did not controvert the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, but he relied upon the order of the AO.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. After perusing the records, we find that tax effect in the Revenue’s appeal is below the limit of Rs. 10 lacs, as fixed by the CBDT and, therefore, the Department’s Appeal is not maintainable, in view of the Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 issued vide F.No. 279/Misc.
142/2007-ITJ (Pt.) by the CBDT. For the sake of convenience, the relevant para nos. 3 & 10 of the aforesaid CBDT’s Circular are reproduced as under:-
“3. Henceforth, appeals/ SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:
Monetary Limit (in S No Appeals in Income-tax matters Rs) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- 2 Before High Court 20,00,000/- 3 Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/- It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.
This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/ Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/ not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.” 5. It is not in dispute that the Board’s instruction or directions issued to the income- tax authorities are binding on those authorities, therefore, the Department should have withdrawn/ not pressed the present Appeal, in view of the aforesaid instructions since the tax effect in the instant Appeal is less than the amount of Rs. 10 lacs, prescribed in the above said CBDT’s Instructions. Keeping in view the CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015, 6. we are of the view that the Revenue should have withdrawn/ not pressed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. We are also of the view that the said Instructions are applicable for the pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in Tribunal. Accordingly, the Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed. 7. In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 24/05/2017.