Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
Date of Hearing : 15-06-2016 Date of Order : 15-06-2016
O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM
This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 29.4.2014 of Ld. CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 on the following grounds:-
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee to file the fresh evidence under Rule 46A when during assessment proceedings despite being given number of opportunities, the assessee could not file submissions and details w.r.t. its claim. Also the AO vide remand report had expressed his objection to admitting any fresh evidence u/s. 46A.
2. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,37,800/- out of total addition of Rs. 20,43,500/- without appreciating the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not explain the source of cash deposits in bank, in view of which cash credits remained unexplained.
3. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- made by AO on account of unexplained investment in mutual funds without appreciating the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not explain the source of cash deposits in bank from which such an investment was made.
4. 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.
In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post, in spite of the same, assessee, nor his authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, I am deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.
From the above, I 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 Page 2 of 5 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 5. December, 2015, I am of the view that the Revenue should have withdrawn/ not pressed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. I am also of Page 3 of 5 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 15/06/2016.