Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : & SHRI KULDIP SINGH:
\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.”
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.”
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such instruction would apply retrospectively and the pending appeals below the specified tax limit of Rs.10 lakh may be withdrawn/not pressed.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.
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.
In view of above, the cross objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous and stands dismissed accordingly.
In the result, revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection stand dismissed. Order pronouncement in open court on 08/03/2016.