ITO, GURGAON vs. SMT. POONAM DHINGRA, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6390/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 March 2016AY 2002-032 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that the appeal was filed contrary to CBDT circular No. 21/2015, as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made on account of business income and unexplained cash deposits. The total deletion amounted to Rs. 15,20,000.

What were the issues?

Whether the departmental appeal is maintainable when the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH & SH.O.P.KANT

Hearing: 10.03.2016Pronounced: 22.03.2016

Date of Hearing 10.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement 22.03.2016 ORDER

PER DIVA SINGH, JM

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the revenue assailing the correctness of the order dated 31.08.2015 of CIT(A)-29, New Delhi pertaining to 2002 –03 assessment year on the following grounds:

– 1. “On facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in admitting additional evidence inspite of the facts that the case does not fall in any of the circumstances provided in clause (a) to (d) of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in not providing opportunity to the AO after admitting additional evidence as provided under Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in deleting the addition or Rs.8,00,000/- made on account of business income for transaction with group concerns.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A has erred in fact and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.7,20,000/- made by the AO on account of deposit of unexplained cash in bank account.

5. The appellant craves for the permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”

I.T.A .No.-6390/Del/2015

2.

Whereas on behalf of the Revenue, an adjournment had been moved stating that the Ld.CIT DR is on leave. For assessee, no one was present. However, considering the fact that the amount AT STAKE for the Revenue is much below the tax limits set by the CBDT circular No.– 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015, the adjournment moved was rejected. The instruction has been issued by the CBDT u/s 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which binds the tax authorities. We find from the record that the deletion directed by the CIT(A) leading to the grievance of the Revenue is of Rs.15,20,000/-(Rs.8,00,000/- + Rs.7,20,000/-). Even at the maximum rate of tax the tax effect thereon would be much below Rs.10 lakh. Para 10 of the aforesaid Circular makes it clear that the instruction shall apply retrospectively. Accordingly noting that the present departmental appeal has been filed contrary to the mandate of the CBDT circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 the Departmental appeal is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 22nd March, 2016.

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →