Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
Date of Hearing : 14-06-2016 Date of Order : 14-06-2016
O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM
This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 29.8.2014 of Ld. CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 on the following grounds:-
“1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in i) Deleting the addition of Rs 23,83,502/- (9,25,000 + 14,58,502) made u/s 68 of the IT Act, quashing the re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act ignoring the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd., of 2011 dated 15.02.2012, wherein it is held that at the stage of issuing notice u/s 148, AO is required to form only a prima facie belief or opinion that income chargeable to tax at a escaped assessment; ii) Deleting the addition of Rs. 23,83,502/- (9,25,000 + 14,58,502) made u/s 68 of the IT Act, without proper enquires whereas he has conterminous power with that of the AO; iii) Deleting the addition of Rs. 23,85,502/- (9,25,000 + 14,58,502) made u/s 68 of IT Act whereas the genuineness & creditworthiness of the transaction is not established during the assessment as well as during appellate proceedings; iv) Deleting the addition of Rs. 9,25,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act in the absence of valid gift deed; v) Deleting the addition of Rs. 14,58,502/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act ignoring the fact that the assessee was failed to explain the source of investment of Rs. 14,58,502/- as loan has been granted to Sh. Shishir Saxena, brother of assessee's husband who is not co-owner. The assessee and her husband Sh. Shikhar Saxena is co-owner of the property; vi) The appellant craves the right to alter, amend, add or substitute the grounds of appeal.
In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post, in spite of the same, assessee, nor her 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 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 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 14/06/2016.