Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI O.P. KANT
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)- Ghaziabad dated 8.11.2011 relating to assessment year 2008-09.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal No. 516/Del/2012:-
“1. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,69,547/- on the evidences which was filed at the appellate stage and was not examined by the AO, as the assessee did not appear before AO when he was asked to appear.
2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,000/- of advance from customer without giving any observation in the order.
That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that ‘confirmation given and difference in the entries and balance satisfactorily explained’ in the case
of MM Industries where difference of Rs. 3,31,405/- was added in the income of the assessee and as the payment of the same was not even confirmed by the ‘debtor’ party.
4. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be cancelled
and the order of the AO may be restored.
5. The appellant craves leave to modify / amend or add any one or more grounds of appeal.
3. The assessee has not raised any ground but has only opposing in detail the each ground raised in the Revenue’s Appeal and supports the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issues involved.
Therefore, the grounds mentioned at Annexure-A in the Cross Objection are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post, which was returned back with the remarks “left without address”. No fresh address has been furnished by the assessee before the Tribunal. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, we are deciding the present Appeal and Cross Objection exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.
Ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. After perusing the grounds mentioned in the Revenue’s Appeal, 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.”
It is not in dispute that the Board’s instruction or directions issued to the income-tax authorities are binding on those 4 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 8.
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.
With regard to Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is concerned, we find that at the time of filing the Cross Objection there is a delay of 774 days for which the assesse has filed the Application for Condonation of delay. After perusing the said application, we are of the view that the reasons mentioned in the Cross Objection by the Assessee are not sufficient and reasonable, hence, the Cross Objection filed by the assesse is dismissed as such. Even otherwise, the Cross Objection is only supportive of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order. Therefore, on this ground also the same is infructuous/dismissed, because we have already dismissed the Revenue’s Appeal on account of low tax effect, as aforesaid.
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 15/02/2017.