ITO, ROORKEE vs. VINOD KUMAR, ROORKEE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1961/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 March 2016AY 2009-103 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 and the assessee's cross-objection without going into the merits. This was based on a CBDT circular regarding appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order allowing relief on unexplained investment and unsecured cash loans. The assessee filed a cross-objection.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of departmental appeal before ITAT due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.

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 “H” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : & SHRI KULDIP SINGH:

For Appellant: Shri Karnesh Sharma
For Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Inspector, Shri Karnesh Sharma
Hearing: 03/03/2016

Heard together (2 matters)

C.O. No. 291/Del/2014
ITA no. 1961/Del/2013

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

\IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH: JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Yr: 2009-10 Income-tax Officer Ward-2, Vs. Vinod Kumar, Roorkee Vill. Bhalswagaj, Roorkee. PAN: AYUPK 9488 L AND C.O. No. 291/Del/2014 ( In Asstt. Yr: 2009-10 Vinod Kumar, Vs. Income-tax Officer Ward-2, Vill. Bhalswagaj, Roorkee. Roorkee ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Nitin Kumar Inspector. Assessee by : Shri Karnesh Sharma Date of hearing : 03/03/2016. Date of order : 08/03/2016. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M:

The revenue has preferred appeal and the assessee has filed cross objection against the order dated 2.1.2013, passed by the ld. CIT(A)-I, Dehradun, relating to A.Y. 2009-10. 2. In its appeal, the department has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief of Rs. 11,59,183/- as unexplained investment in purchase without appreciating the facts that the assessee had not recorded purchases in his books, which remains unexplained purchases. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts in allowing the relief of 4,06,000/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee could not prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction of unsecured cash loan. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and of AO be restored.”

3.

The adjournment application moved on behalf of the assessee has been rejected by us, observing as under: “Rejected as department’s appeal prima facie Covered by Circular no. 5/2014 dt. 10.7.14 tax effect being less than 10 lakhs. CO filed by assessee becomes infructuous.”

4.

The recent CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 stipulates that no departmental appeal, involving tax effect below Rs.10 lakhs, shall be filed before the ITAT. Para 10 of the Circular specifies that such instruction would apply retrospectively and the pending appeals below the specified tax limit of Rs.10 lakh may be withdrawn/not pressed. Thus, the present departmental appeal is not maintainable in terms of section 268A(1) of the Income-tax Act. However, we may clarify that if on receipt of this order, the Assessing Officer finds that the tax effect involved is above Rs.10 lacs or in any other manner, the circular is not applicable in view of exceptions culled out in the circular, he will be at liberty to take such steps, as deem fit, to recall the order. We also clarify that this order would not be considered as an acceptance by the Revenue on the issue involved in this appeal and will not be an estoppel for the Revenue to take up the issue involved in this appeal before the ITAT on merits if the tax effect in those years is more than 10 lakhs.

5.

Keeping in view the aforementioned CBDT Circular and the provisions of section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without going into merits of the cases, we dismiss the instant appeal filed by the Revenue as tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.10.00 lacs.

6.

In view of above, the cross objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous and stands dismissed accordingly.

7.

In the result, revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection stand dismissed. Order pronouncement in open court on 08/03/2016.

More judgments on Section 268A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →