ITO WARD 25 (2) vs. NEELAM JAIN,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3308/DEL/2007Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 August 2016AY 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 Department's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal directed that appeals with tax effect below the limit should be withdrawn or not pressed.

What were the facts?

The Department appealed the deletion of an addition made under Section 68 and a subsequent addition under Section 69C. The additions related to alleged non-genuine transactions with a jewelry firm.

What were the issues?

Whether the Department's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI O.P. KANT, ACOUNTANT MEMBER

For Respondent: Ms. Puja Anand, Adv

This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 09.4.2007 of Ld. CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 1999-2000 on the following grounds:- “ (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2468750/- u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 and sequel addition of Rs. 12343/- u/s 69C of the Act on the ground that the appellant had discharged its burden of proof u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the paper trail comprises documents which were generated by the parties concerned themselves, therefore, such evidence is self serving. Moreover, the mere fact that payments were received in cheque does not establishes the nature of the receipt under consideration. Therefore, it is pertinent to ignore the obvious and to take into consideration the circumstantial evidence, which in this case were the findings given by DCIT CCV-3 in his order u/s. 158BD in the case of Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar.

2. Ld. CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the findings given in the case of M/s Bishan Chand Mukcsh Kumar where it was Inferred, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that such firm did not carry out an) jewellery, business. Such findings were employed in the instant case to hold that if M/s BCMK did not do any genuine jewellery business. Then how the transactions of the parites with such firm, can be considered as genuine.”

The appellant craves the right to add an}' other ground of appeal.”

2.

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.”

3.

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.

4.

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. 5. In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10/08/2016.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →