Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 05.3.2010 of Ld. CIT(A)-II, Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2006-07 on the following grounds:- “1. Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,12,000/- made on account of low house hold withdrawals on the basis of additional evidence for which no opportunity of hearing as required under Rule 46A was provided to the AO. 2(a) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in the circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 11 lakh made on account of unexplained gift. (b) While doing so he has ignored the fact that during the course of search proceedings assessee himself has admitted income of Rs. 15 lakhs from undisclosed sources. (c) That the order of Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be cancelled and that of AO to be restored.
3(a) In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained jewellery seized from the assessee particularly when the assessee has failed to explain the srouce of acquisition of jewellery. (b) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was incorrect in holding that the instruction no. 1961 is also relevant for the purpose of assessment of seized jewellery in addition to the release of same at the time of search.
4. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.
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.”
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 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. 5. In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04/7/2016.