Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI O.P. KANT
Date of Hearing : 14-07-2016 Date of Order : 18-07-2016
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), Meerut dated 24.3.2011 relating to assessment year 2006-07.
The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal:
1 That the order of CIT(A) is erroneous in law and on facts as he has accepted the additional evidences submitted by the appellant in contravention to rule
46A of the I.T. Rules without giving proper opportunity to the AO to rebut the appellant’s claim.
2 That the CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,73,000/- being the investment in FDR on a wrong application of law and fact and without any basis ignoring the conclusive evidence brought on record in this regard by the AO, in inspite of the fact that many opportunities were given to the assessee to substantiate the onus of these FDRs’.
3 That the CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,84,360/- on account of unexplained credit on a wrong application of law and fact and without any basis. In doing so, the CIT(A) totally ignored the evidentiary value of seized Annexure A-6 with conclusively established unexplained credit. A document seized during the course of search and seizure operation constitute an evidence in terms of section 132(4A) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
4 That CIT(A) has erred in substituting his own satisfaction in place of AO’s satisfaction as required under section 68 of the I.T. Act without giving anyt reason or justification for this deviation.
5 That the order of the CIT(A) being erroneous in law and facts needs to be vacated and the order of the AO be restored.
6 That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any one or more of the ground of the appeal as stated above as and when need for doing so may arise.
The assessee has raised the following grounds in its Cross Objection:-
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant had filed appeal against order u/s. 127 of the Act which was not an appellble order.
2. In so doing the Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate that the assessment was void and illegal and, therefore,
bad in law in absence of communication of order u/s. 127 of the Act to the appellant, a fact accepted by the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties 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.
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 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 6.
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.
Since we have dismissed the Revenue’s Appeal, as aforesaid, the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee has become infructuous. hence, the same is dismissed as such.
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 18/07/2016.