DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S B.B. CORPORATE SERVICES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1771/DEL/2011Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 March 2017AY 2007-084 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 tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable and should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the CIT(A) that deleted additions made on account of share capital, current liabilities, and administrative expenses. The assessee argued that the tax effect of the appeal was below the CBDT's prescribed limit.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit by the CBDT.

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 ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM The Department has filed this Appeal which is emanate from the Order dated 24.1.2011 of Ld. CIT(A)-V, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. The grounds raised in the revenue’s appeal reads as under:-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- made u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act on account of increase in share capital ignoring that: a) several opportunities were afforded to the assessee but it failed to prove the source and nature of share capital. No document was furnished either during the course of assessment proceedings or appellate proceedings to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness to prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of transactions which are the pre requisite conditions as laid down u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. b) the material placed before Ld. CIT(A) by way of additional evidence was not brought to the notice of the AO before admitting the same which is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue under Rule 46A of the I.T. Act.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 5,02,642/- on account of increase in current liabilities. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in solely relying on the order of Company Law Board and no other document in support of increase in liability or the expenses claimed was furnished either during the course of assessment proceedings or during the appellate proceedings. Moreover, the question before the AO was to determine as to whether the liability was ascertained or not and in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the AO rightly disallowed the increase in current liabilities. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting addition of Rs. 21,68,462/- on account of disallowance of 15% of total administrative expenses ignoring that no supporting evidence / books of account were produced by the assessee. 5. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.

2.

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.

3.

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.

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. 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 03/03/2017.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →