Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI O.P. KANT
This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 18.7.2011 of Ld. CIT(A)-II, Dehradun, Camp at Haldwani pertaining to assessment year 2004-05 on the following grounds:-
1. On facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs 6,13,951.00 on alc of sales of Rice bran giving reason that two Rice millers of the same vicinity have shown recovery at 6% and he also relied on decisions of Hon'ble ITAT and Hon'ble CIT(A), however, he has not taken into consideration the three comparable cases mentioned in the .assessmcnt order who have shown recovery more' than 7% and also not appreciated the fact that the Hon'ble ITAT and Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital have confirmed the addition made by the AO on alc of husk, without detecting outside books sales.
2. Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in reducing addition of Rs 2,25,000.00 from Rs 4,50,000.00 without giving any reason. The quantum of addition has already been reduced by the AO in the set-aside assessment proceedings in the light of judgments of Hon'ble ITAT and Hon'ble Uttrakhand High Court, Nainital against from Rs 7,06,535.00 to Rs 4,50,000.00.
3. Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs 1,53,648.00 on alc of under valuation of closing stock of finished goods (Rice bran) on the ground that the AO has valued closing stock at market price but valuation of closing stock at cost price is correct option. The dispute is only that rate was incorrectly adopted by the assessee. The assessee has never claimed that valuation has been made by him at cost price, thus, addition made by adopting actual market rate is correct. The decision quoted by Ld CIT(A) relates to method of valuation, hence, not relevant.
4. Any other grounds raised during the proceedings of 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.
In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 01/07/2016.