Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI L.P. SAHU
Date of Hearing : 03-02-2016 Date of Order : 05-02-2016
ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M.
This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order dated 13.2.2013 of Ld. CIT(A)-Meerut pertaining to assessment year 2006-07 on the following grounds:-
“(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CfT (Appeals) has erred in law in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 14,76,718/-made uls 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on a/c of alleged unsecured loans after verifying that the same existed in the beginning of the previous year ignoring that the cash credit at the first day of accounting year are also liable to be added uls 68 of the I.T. Act, I 96 I and further without appreciating the facts that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the lenders with respect to the amounts allegedly given as the loans. Onus to prove such creditworthiness was entirely upon the assessee which totally remained undischarged. Reliance is placed on the following judgments:
I. Basantipur Tea Co.(P) Ltd. Vs CIT 180 ITR 261(Cal) II. "Krishan Kumar Jhanb vis ITO and Anr (Punjab & Haryana) 17 DTR 249" III. Mis Sejai International Ltd vis CIT Meerut (All.) Appeal No.306 of 2010. IV. CIT Vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540(SC) V. CIT Vs P. Mohnakala, 291 ITR 278 (SC) VI. CIT Vs Sumati Dayal, 214, ITR 801 (SC) VII. ITO Vs Diza Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 255 ITR 573 (Kerla) VIII. VIII. CIT vis Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (Cal.) 232 ITR 820.
(2) That the appellant craves leave to add, modify andlor delete any ground(s) of appeal.
(3) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the A.O. restored.”
We find that Revenue in the Grounds of Appeal
before the Tribunal has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 14,76,718/- vide ground no. 1, as aforesaid.
3. From the above, we find that the tax effect in the Revenue’s Appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, therefore, the Department’s Appeal is not maintainable, in view of the Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 issued vide F.No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt.) by the CBDT. For the sake of convenience, the relevant para nos. 3 & 10 of the aforesaid CBDT’s Circular are reproduced as under:-
“3. Henceforth, appeals/ SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder: Monetary Limit S No Appeals in Income-tax matters (in Rs) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000/- 2 Before High Court 20,00,000/- 3 Before Supreme Court 25,00,000/- It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case.
This instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in High Courts/ Tribunals. Pending appeals below the specified tax limits in para 3 above may be withdrawn/ not pressed. Appeals before the Supreme Court will be governed by the instructions on this subject, operative at the time when such appeal was filed.”
It is not in dispute that the Board’s instruction or directions issued to the income-tax authorities are binding on those authorities, therefore, the Department should have withdrawn/ not pressed the present Appeal, in view of the aforesaid instructions since the tax effect in the instant Appeal is less than the amount of Rs. 10 lacs, prescribed in the above said CBDT’s Instructions.
Keeping in view the CBDT Instruction No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015, we are of the view that the Revenue should have withdrawn/ not pressed the instant appeal before the Tribunal. We are also of the view that the said Instructions are applicable for the pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in Tribunal. Accordingly, the Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed.
In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05/02/2016.