ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI SANJAY BAJAJ, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5221/DEL/2010Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 April 2017AY 2006-074 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 in limine, holding it was not maintainable. This was based on CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015, as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals to the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made under Section 68. The additions pertained to Rs. 8,00,000/- as sale proceeds and Rs. 1,46,577/- declared as business income.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT when the tax effect is below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH - ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI ANADI N. MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

This appeal has been filed by Revenue against order dated 29.1.2009 of Ld.

CIT(A) – XXII, New Delhi. The grounds of appeal are as under:

1) The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as un-explained income, under section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by not appreciating the fact that there was no occasion for the Assessing Officer to examine the other documents furnished by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) in proof of Sale proceeds of Rs. 8,00,000/- and if the same was ever paid to the assessee by the builder M/s. Radha Raman Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

2) The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,46,577/- made by the Assessing Officer as un-explained income, under section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee had declared the said amount of Rs. 1,46,577/- as his returned income from business and profession, and that there was no occasion for the Assessing Officer to examine the other documents furnished by the assessee before the CIT (Appeal)

Asstt. Year 2006-07 ITO vs. Sanjay Bajaj

3) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter all or any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal and amend, alter or add any other ground of appeal.”

2.

No one was present on behalf of the assessee. However, on a perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that the said appeal can be decided on the basis of tax effect involved.

3.

We have perused the material available on record. On a careful consideration of the same, we are of the view that the departmental appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is seen that tax effect in Revenue’s Appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/- . Therefore, this appeal is covered by Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 of CBDT, issued vide F.No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt.) . For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the aforesaid CBDT Circular is 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 S No Appeals in Income-tax matters (in 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. ….. ….. 10. 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 Page 2

Asstt. Year 2006-07 ITO vs. Sanjay Bajaj 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.” We are of the view that the aforesaid CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th 4. December, 2015 is applicable for the pending appeals filed by Revenue, as well as for the appeals to be filed by Revenue henceforth. In view of the aforesaid Instruction, therefore, Revenue should have withdrawn / not pressed the present Appeal, since the tax effect in the instant appeal is less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- , specified in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015.

5.

In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the appeal is inconsistent with the aforesaid CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015; and hold that the appeal is, therefore, not maintainable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in limine, appeal being not maintainable; without going into the merits. In the result, this appeal, filed by Revenue; stands dismissed. This was pronounced orally in the open court immediately after conclusion of hearing. This written order is pronounced in open court on 24/04/2017.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →