Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH & SH.O.P.KANT
Date of Hearing 22.02.2016 Date of Pronouncement 22.03.2016 ORDER
PER DIVA SINGH, JM
The present appeals have been filed by the Revenue assailing the correctness of the separate orders dated 04.04.2011 of CIT(A), Meerut pertaining to 2004-05 & 2005-06 assessment years on the following grounds:-
ITA No.-3316/Del/2011 1. “That the order of CIT(A) is erroneous in law and on facts as he has accepted the additional evidence submitted by the appellant in contravention to rely 106A of the IT Act.
2. That the CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.3,86,000/- on account of unexplained investment without appreciating the fact and in that any basis ignoring the facts brought on records by the AO and by substituting his own satisfaction in place of AOs satisfaction as required under section 68 of the IT Act.
3. That the CIT(A) erred in law and in deleting the addition of Rs.2,34,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit without appreciating the fact that the onus to prove the genuineness and source of these alleged unsecured loans lay on the assessee and the assessee has failed to discharge his onus to the satisfaction of the AO in spite of being specially required by the AO to do so.” ITA No.-3317/Del/2011 1. “That the order of CIT(A) is erroneous in law and on facts as he has accepted the additional evidence submitted by the appellant in contravention to rely 106A of the IT Act.
I.T.A .No.-3316 & 3317/Del/2011 2. That the CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,62,500/- on account of unexplained investment without appreciating the fact and in that any basis ignoring the facts brought on records by the AO and by substituting his own satisfaction in place of AOs satisfaction as required under section 68 of the IT Act.
3. That the CIT(A) erred in law and in deleting the addition of Rs.6,21,339/- on account of unexplained cash credit without appreciating the fact that the onus to prove the genuineness and source of these alleged unsecured loans lay on the assessee and the assessee has failed to discharge his onus to the satisfaction of the AO in spite of being specially required by the AO to do so.”
The Ld.AR submitted that the tax effect involved in the above two appeals is less than Rs.10 lacs as such they may be dismissed. The Ld. CIT DR, Smt. Metali Madhusudan was required to respond why the present appeals should not be dismissed in the light of the latest circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 of CBDT as the tax effect in the above two departmental appeals is much below the Rs.10 lacs limit fixed by the Board.
Considering the material available on record qua the grounds raised
, the CIT DR fairly submitted that tax effect involved is less than Rs.10 lacs.
4. We have heard the submissions of the parties on this issue and perused the material on record. We find that the CBDT vide the aforesaid Circular dated 10.12.2015 has revised the monetary limit to Rs.10 lakh for filing the appeal by the department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Para 3 of the aforesaid Circular has been made applicable vide para 10 retrospectively. Considering the settled legal precedent that the Board’s instructions or directions issued to the Income Tax Authorities u/s 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are binding on the authorities, we dismiss the departmental appeals considering the material available on record.
5. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 22nd March, 2016.