ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. UMESH CHAND, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6924/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 July 2016AY 2009-102 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal, relying on a CBDT Circular that revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to the ITAT. The tax effect in this appeal was below the revised limit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted an addition of Rs. 17,06,900 made by the AO. The addition was made to the assessee's returned income of Rs. 2,18,015 for the assessment year 2009-10.

What were the issues?

Whether the departmental appeal is maintainable given the revised monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular, and if the circular applies retrospectively.

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

Hearing: 05.07.2016Pronounced: 25.07.2016

ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue assailing the correctness of the order dated 20.10.2014 of CIT(A)-XXVII, New Delhi pertaining to 2009-10 assessment year on the following grounds:

– 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is bad in law and not in consonance with the facts of the case.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition by relying on the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee and ignoring the fact that the assessee had ample cash in hand on the dates of withdrawals of cash from the bank, for which the assessee did not submit any justification for the necessity of cash withdrawals on those dates.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) himself specifically mentioned that the assessee did not submit any specific evidence or submissions regarding the source of the 3 cash deposits and despite of it, he has allowed relief to the assessee.

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

I.T.A .No.-6924/Del/2014

2.

A perusal of the assessment order shows that the returned income of Rs.2,18,015/- was assessed at Rs.19,24,920/- as a result of the addition of Rs.17,06,900/- by the AO. The said addition was deleted in appeal by the CIT(A) which is challenged by the Revenue in the present proceedings. 2.1. The Ld.AR inviting attention to the Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 of CBDT submitted that the said Circular is retrospective and thus in terms of para 10 of the same, the departmental appeal deserve to be dismissed. Considering the Circular and the issue raised, the Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded that the departmental appeal has been filed wherein the tax effect involved is much less than Rs.10 lakh.

3.

Having heard the submissions of the parties on this issue and perused the material on record. I find that the CBDT vide the aforesaid Circular dated 10.12.2015 has revised the monetary limit to Rs.10 lakh in para 3 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 is dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 25th 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 →