DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHAGUN TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2596/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 July 2016AY 2004-054 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 CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Department appealed an order from the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2004-05. The appeal was against the deletion of an addition made on account of unexplained investment in share application money.

What were the issues?

Whether the Department's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit as per 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 ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI ANADI N. MISHRA

For Appellant: Ms. Deepika Mittal, CIT(DR)

This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 17.2.2014 of Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2004-05 on the following grounds:-

“1. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in treating the addition made to be beyond the scope of section 153A of the I.T. Act.

2. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in holding that the original assessment cannot be disturbed as there was no incriminating material found during search.

3. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case deleting the addition of Rs. 19,31,000/- made by AO on account of unexplained investment in share application money u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

4.(a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.

(b) The appellant craves leaves to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal or during the course of hearing of the appeal.

2.

In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post, in spite of the same, assessee, nor his authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment.

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 exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.

3.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on record.

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.”

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. Keeping in view the CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th 5.

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.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27/7/2016.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →