ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. NAVEEN GARG, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6374/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 September 2016AY 2009-103 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 due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Department appealed the deletion of an addition made on account of unexplained cash credits. The tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 10,00,000.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal filed by the Department is maintainable when the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

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 ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Respondent: Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, Adv

This appeal filed by the Department is directed against the Order dated 18.9.2015 of Ld. CIT(A)-14, New Delhi pertaining to assessment years 2009-10. 2. The grounds raised in both these appeals read as under:-

On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in – 1. Deleting the addition of Rs. 32,30,220/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2.

Accepting the additional evidence and not taking full cognizance of Remand Report of AO wherein the AO had clearly stated that no documents to substantive the source of cash deposits made by the assessee into his bank account was failed either during the assessment proceedings or during the remand proceedings.

3. The appellant craves the right to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal.

3.

I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. At the threshold, I find that the tax effect in the Revenue Appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, therefore, the Department’s Appeals 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.”

4.

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.

5.

Keeping in view the CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015, I am of the view that the Revenue should have withdrawn/ not pressed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. I am also of the view that the said Instructions are applicable for the pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in Tribunal.

6.

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 02/9/2016.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →