Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU, JM
The Department has filed this Appeal which is emanate from the Order dated 16.5.2012 of Ld. CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised in the revenue’s appeal reads as under:-
“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and is against the facts of the case.
2. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 5,38,600/- made by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by not appreciating the fact that the disclosure of income was the result of search operation on the assessee and not voluntary.
3. On the facts and circumstancse of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that provision of explanation 5(1) and explanation 5(2) of the section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not applicable in this case.
Whether the disclosure made in response of notice u/s. 153A((1)(a) in respect of earlier assessment year i.e. AY 2005-06 over and above already returned income after the search operation held on 11.1.2007 can be said voluntary in nature.
The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by ignoring that if in pursuant to search operation, penalty is not levied for unearthing of additional income detected during a search, it would be an open incentive to all to conceal their income till such time it is detected by the department.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated tax effect in the Revenue’s Appeal 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. 4. 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 in the Open Court on 17/04/2017.