ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. NARESH KUMAR JUNEJA, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2050/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 July 2016AY 2006-073 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 allowed the revenue to withdraw its appeal based on a CBDT circular regarding appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs. The withdrawal was not to be considered a precedent for future years.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2006-07. The assessee did not appear, and the appeal was decided ex parte. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal due to a low tax effect.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions related to deemed dividend, cost of improvement for capital gains, and treating land as agricultural.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e),Section 2(14)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC-2” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA :

For Appellant: Shri N.K. Bansal Sr. DR
Hearing: 19/07/2016

This is revenue’s appeal against the order dated 07.01.2015, passed by the ld. CIT(A)-18, New Delhi, relating to A.Y. 2006-07. 2. None put in appearance on behalf of the assessee. We proceed to dispose of the assessee’s appeal, ex parte, qua the assessee and in that process I have heard ld. DR and perused the material available on record. 3. Ground of appeal

, raised by the revenue in its appeal, are as under:

1. "Whether the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,85,979/- in the hands of assessee as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act,1961, whereas the assessee holds more than 20% shares in both SM H & .IG and NJG has accepted unsecured loan /advance from SMH".

2, "Whether the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in allowing the claim of expenses amounting to Rs.l,99,000/- towards cost of improvement from sale consideration while computing short term capital gain and treating this expense capital in nature." 3. "Whether the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.14,21 ,284/- as long term capital gain and treating the land in question agricultural land whereas the land was situated at a distance of less than 8km from the district main city Gurgaon and not covered in the definition ofSection2(14)(iii) of I.T.Act, I 961."

4.

"The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all the grounds of appeal

before or during the course of hearing of the appeal."

4. Ld. DR at the outset submitted that, prima facie, the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than Rs. 10 lakhs. Therefore, in terms of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, stipulating that no departmental appeal, involving tax effect below Rs.10 lakhs, shall be filed before the ITAT and further that such instruction would apply retrospectively and the pending appeals below the specified tax limit of Rs.10 lakh may be withdrawn/not pressed, the department may be allowed to withdraw the appeal, provided that it should not be considered as a precedent in the subsequent years of the acceptance of issues involved in this appeal and, therefore, if in the subsequent year similar issue arises before the ITAT, where the appeal is above the tax limit, as prescribed in the Board’s Circular, the same should be decided on merits.

5. After considering the submissions of ld. DR, the departmental appeal is treated as withdrawn in terms of Board’s Circular, referred to above.

6.

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed having been withdrawn.

Order pronouncement in open court on 25/07/2016.

More judgments on Section 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →