ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6431/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 March 2016AY 2008-092 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 departmental appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT was applicable retrospectively and binding on the revenue authorities.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition made under Section 69. The appeal was filed despite the tax effect being less than the revised monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

What were the issues?

Whether the departmental appeal is maintainable given the tax effect is below the revised monetary limit specified by CBDT circular, and if additional evidence was rightly admitted by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,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: 10.03.2016

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 23.09.2015 of CIT(A)-17, New Delhi pertaining to 2008–09 assessment year on the following grounds: – (i) “The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.20,31,756/- made by AO u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of payment through credit card without appreciating the fact that there is no evidence that the credit card payments were used for business purpose only. (ii) The LD.CIT(A) has erred in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A as condition laid down as per said rule are not fulfilled because- (a) A series of sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee to produce evidence. (b) There is no sufficient cause established on the record for non- submission of information before AO.

I.T.A .No.-6431/Del/2015

(c) There is no recording of reasons in the order of CIT(A) for admission of additional evidence. (iii) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.”

2.

No one was present at the time of hearing on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR, Mr.P.D.Kanunjna was required to address the maintainability of the departmental appeal in view of the latest circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 of CBDT. Considering the same in the facts on record, the Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded that the departmental appeal has been filed wherein the tax effect involved is much less than Rs.10 lakh.

3.

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 appeal considering the material available on record. 4. 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 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →