DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHAGUN TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2597/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 August 2016AY 2005-063 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 appeal was not maintainable as it was covered by CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015, which mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/-.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) concerning AY 2005-06. The tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 10,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the low tax effect, and whether the additions made were beyond the scope of Section 153A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Before: SHRI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHUH.S. SIDHUH.S. SIDHUH.S. SIDHUSHRI A NADI N. MISHRAN. MISHRASHRI A SHRI A NADI N. MISHRAN. MISHRA

For Appellant: Ms. Deepika Mittal, CIT(DR)

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 2597/Del/2014
ITA No. 259 /Del/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Per ANADI Per Per NADI NADI N. MISHRA NADI N. MISHRA N. MISHRA, Accountant Member N. MISHRA Accountant Member Accountant Member Accountant Member

1.

ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER This appeal has been filed by Revenue against order dated 28.2.2014 of Ld. CIT(A) - IV, New Delhi. The grounds of appeal are as under:

“1. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in treating the addition made to be beyond the scope of section 153A of the I.T. Act.

2. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in holding that the original assessment cannot be disturbed as there was no incriminating material found during search.

3. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case deleting the addition of Rs. 19,18,000/- made by AO on account of unexplained investment in share application money u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. (a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leaves to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal or during the course of hearing of the appeal. Page 1 of 3

AY 2005-06 in the case of DCIT v/s M/s Mahagun Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

2.

During the course of hearing, the assessee was not represented by any authorized representative. We have heard the learned CIT (DR) who appeared on behalf of Revenue, and we have also perused the materials on record. From the above, we find that the tax effect in Revenue’s Appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/- . Therefore, this appeal is covered by Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 of CBDT, issued vide F.No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt.) . For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the aforesaid CBDT Circular is 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 AY 2005-06 in the case of DCIT v/s M/s Mahagun Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”

3.

We are of the view that the aforesaid CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 is applicable for the pending appeals filed by Revenue, as well as for the appeals to be filed by Revenue henceforth. In view of the aforesaid Instruction, therefore, Revenue should have withdrawn / not pressed the present Appeal, since the tax effect in the instant appeal is less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- , specified in the aforesaid CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015.

4.

In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the appeal is inconsistent with the aforesaid CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015; and hold that the appeal is, therefore, not maintainable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in limine, appeal being not maintainable; without going into the merits.

5.

In the result, this appeal, filed by Revenue; stands dismissed.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →