ITO WARD-23 (2), NEW DELHI vs. ANUJ MEHTA, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2806/DEL/2008Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 February 2017AY 1999-20003 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 appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular's instructions are binding on the revenue authorities.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition made by the AO. The appeal was filed despite a CBDT circular stating that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the revenue is maintainable given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit by the CBDT circular. The maintainability of the appeal based on CBDT's monetary limits for filing appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI

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

For Appellant: Shri. S.K. Jain, DR
For Respondent: Shri. Dhanjay Sinha, ADV
Hearing: 28/02/2017Pronounced: 28/02/2017

Assessee by : Shri. S.K. Jain, DR Revenue by: Shri. Dhanjay Sinha, ADV Date of Hearing 28/02/2017 Date of pronouncement 28/02/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal filed by the Department is directed against the order of the ld CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi dated 31.12.2012 for the Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) referred in both in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.18,43,255/-made by the AO u/s 68 of Income Tax 1961.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the A.O. was in his power to examine the real sale of the jewellery declared under the VDIS as per the judgement of the Special Bench of the IT AT in the case of Mr. Manoj Aggarwal vs DCTT IT SS No. 404, 405, 452/Del/2003.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred in law ( and on facts in not appreciating the fact that Mr. Manoj Aggarwal and Mr Mukesh Aggarwal and Bishan Chand Aggarwal wre not doing any real business, but were only doing the business of giving accommodation entries.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT (A) had erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the tact that Mr, Manoj Aggarwal and Mr Bislian Chand Aggarwal were directors in M/s Bemco Jewellers (P) Ltd and all the transactions in M/s Bemco Jewellers Pvt Ltd were held as accommodation entries and the addition was confirmed by the CTT(A) in the Appeal No, Del/CIT A2/02-03/204 vide order dt 21/5/2003 in the cases of Mr. Manoj Aggarwal and M/s Bemco Jewellers (F) Ltd. 5 On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that it was proved conclusively by the AC) of M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar that the Page 2 of 3 assessee was not doing any real business of purchase or sale of jewellery but only providing accommodation entries to various persons, 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that no books of accounts or bills / vouchers for the A.Y 95-96. 96-97, 97-98, 2000-01 or 2001-02 were ever produced by the assessee. M/s Bislian Chaad Mukesh Kumar before the AO, DCIT, Ceiitral Circle -3, Delhi.

7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the assessee M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar never produced its auditor before the AO.DCTT, Central Circle-3, Delhi and even the address of the Auditor was never given to the Department.

8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the ratio of the case of M/s. in not appreciating the fact that the ratio of the case of M/s. SMC Share Broker Ltd 288 ITR 345 is not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of CIT(A) is erroneous and contrary to facts and law.”

3.

At the outset of the hearing itself, the ld. DR brought to our attention that CBDT vide Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 has decided that the revenue would not prefer an appeal before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs.10 lakhs. Therefore, he pleaded that the appeal of the revenue be decided as per the instruction of the CBDT. Ld AR also reiterated same facts.

4.

We have heard both the sides on the issue and perused the material. We find that the CBDT vide circular dated 10.12.2015 has revised the monetary limit for filing the appeal by the department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant para of the aforesaid 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 :- Sl.No. Appeals in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit(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.”

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →