DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VASUDEVA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4245/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 July 2016AY 2005-062 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 CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 10 Lacs, is applicable retrospectively. As the tax effect was below this limit, the departmental appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order that deleted an addition made on account of GP rate. The tax effect of the appeal was calculated to be Rs. 9,37,873/-.

What were the issues?

Whether a departmental appeal is maintainable when the tax effect is below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

For Respondent: CA &
Hearing: 21.06.2016Pronounced: 12.07.2016

Date of Hearing 21.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement 12.07.2016 ORDER

PER DIVA SINGH, JM

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue assailing the correctness of the order dated 09.05.2014 of CIT(A)-XXXI, New Delhi pertaining to 2005-06 assessment year on the following grounds:

– 1. “The order of Ld.CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.25,63,024/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of GP rate of 0.2% of total turnover of Rs.1,28,15,12,253/- as against a GP rate of 0.01% which appears to be at lower side, since the assessee was making total sales in cash and no details of parties to whom sales were made furnished and the profit shown by the assessee was not verifiable.

3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

2.

Ld.AR addressing the fact submitted that the tax effect involved is less than Rs. 10 Lacs accordingly relying on the CBDT Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 it was submitted that the departmental appeal is not maintainable. Attention was invited to the following calculation stating that the tax effect of the present appeal is only Rs.9,37,873/-:-

I.T.A .No.-4245/Del/2014

Total addition made by the AO Rs.25,63,024/- Rate of Tax 35% Income Tax on above addition Rs.8,97,058/- Surcharge @ 2.5% Rs.22,426/- Education Cess Rs.18,389/- [2% of (Income Tax + Surcharge)] Rs.118,389/- Total amount of Income Tax Rs.9,37,873/-

3.

In view of the fact that the Revenue moved an adjournment petition stating that the CIT DR is not available, time was afforded to the Revenue. On the next date also, a similar adjournment petition was moved on behalf of the Revenue. Since an opportunity had already been given to the Revenue to make alternate arrangements accordingly after requiring the Ld.Sr.DR to verify the tax effect involved who stated that the calculation were correct, the application moved was rejected. The Ld. AR re-iterate the submission advanced.

4.

I have seen the record and heard the submissions, I find that the CBDT vide Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 has revised the monetary limit to Rs.10 Lacs for filing the appeal by the department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Para 3 of the aforesaid Circular has been made applicable vide para 10 retrospectively. Considering the settled legal precedent that the Board’s instructions or directions issued to the Income Tax Authorities u/s 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are binding on the authorities, the departmental appeal considering the material available on record is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 12th July, 2016.

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →