ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAKSHI GRANITE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5489/DEL/2010Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2016AY 2006-074 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 Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal stated that the Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Department appealed an order by the CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2006-07. The appeal involved grounds related to admitting additional evidence and deleting an addition made by the AO. The tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 10,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the Department's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal when the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circular. Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence and deleting the addition made by the AO.

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 ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI J.S. REDDY

For Appellant: Smt. K.Y. Sherpa, Sr. DR

This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 17.9.2010 of Ld. CIT(A)-X, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2006-07 on the following grounds /additional grounds:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on merits in admitting additional evidences in contravention to rule 46A of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on merits in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,35,000/- made by AO as income from undisclosed sources as per section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

3. The appellant craves to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS:- “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred on fact and in law in deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 14,16,762/-

2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in determining the proportionate share in undivided land at 11% instead of 30% determined by the AO.”

2.

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.

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.”

3.

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.

4.

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. 5. In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 06/05/2016.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →