ITO, GHAZIABAD vs. SHRI LOVANSHU BHARDWAJ, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3383/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 February 2017AY 2010-114 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 held that the CBDT circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below a certain limit should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the tax effect in this case was below the limit, the Department's appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Department appealed the deletion of additions made on account of unexplained cash credit and cash deposit. The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the Department's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

This appeal filed by the Department is directed against the Order dated 28.3.2016 of Ld. CIT(A, Muzaffrnagar pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. 2. The grounds raised in this appeal read as under:-

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 27,84,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the document furnished even after several opportunities allowed.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,99,500/- as the assessee failed to prove the source of cash deposit in his bank account.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee discharged his onus by furnishing the documentary evidence in support of cash deposit when the assessee could not justify the genuineness of the document furnished by producing the person concerned for examination when called by the AO.

4. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the AO be restored.

3.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed an application stating therein that the tax effect in the present appeal is below prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lacs, hence, he requested that the Appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed. 3.1 However, the Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

4.

I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. I note that the tax effect in this case 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.

10.

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.”

5.

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.

6.

Keeping in view the CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th 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. 7. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 02/02/2017.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →