ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUPERB DEVELOPERS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 53/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 April 2017AY 2007-086 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 held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection became infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made under Section 68 regarding share application money and commission. The assessee filed a cross-objection challenging the addition itself.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect and the validity of additions made under Section 68.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M.

The appeal has been filed by the Department and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-I, New Delhi dated 25.10.2013 relating to assessment year 2007-08.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its Appeal No. 53/Del/2014:-

“1. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act w.r.t. procurement of accommodation entries through share application money from non-descript companies.

2. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting an addition of Rs. 6,000/- made byh

the AO w.r.t. commission paid @5% for procurement of accommodation entries through share application money from non-descript companies.

3.

The CIT(A) erred in admitting additional

evidence under Rule 46A.

4. (a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous

and not tenable in law and on facts.

(b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.

3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in its Cross Objection:-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the addition of Rs.

12,06,000/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act on the ground that the above additions were not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search on the respondent assessee when the original assessment proceedings in the case had not abated as per provisio to section 153A(1) of the I.T. Act.

That the Assessee is a public limited company filing its return of income regularly.”

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. From the above, we find that the tax effect in the Revenue’s Appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, 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 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 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.

6.

Keeping in view the CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015, 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. As regards the Assessee’s Cross Objection is concerned, since we have already dismissed the Revenue’s Appeal on account of low tax effect, hence the Assessee’s Cross Objection has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such. 8. In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objection filed by the Assessee Stand dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19/04/2017.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →