What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal decided the appeal ex-parte as none appeared for the Department.

The Department appealed an order by the CIT(A) that deleted an addition of Rs. 28,00,000/- and did not enhance income by Rs. 11,93,600/-. The Department's appeal had a tax effect below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Department's appeal before the ITAT based on the tax effect and the applicability of CBDT circulars. The Tribunal also considered the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A).

DCIT vs Smt. Asha Aggarwal, New Delhi | ITAT Delhi 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHUSMT. ASHA AGGARWAL,

This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 14.11.2014 of Ld. CIT(A)-XXXII, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds:-

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 28,00,000/- on account of unexplained receipts in the bank account without examining and adjudicating upon merits of the case.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not enhancing the income of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 11,93,600/- on account of unexplained sources of payment without examining and adjudicating upon merits of the case.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46A though the same were objected by the AO. 4. (a) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.

In this case, Notice of hearing to the Revenue, in spite of the same, none appeared from the Department side 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, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the Revenue, therefore, I am deciding the present appeal exparte qua Revenue after hearing the Ld. Authorised Representative of the Assessee and perusing the records.

From the above, I 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 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, 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. Accordingly, the Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed.

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18/07/2016.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. ASHA AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments