Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACOUNTANT MEMBER
This appeal by the Department and Cross Objection was filed by the Assessee are directed against the Order dated 28.11.2013 of Ld. CIT(A)-Meerut pertaining to assessment year 2009-10.
The grounds raised in the Revenue’s Appeal read as under:-
That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not appreciating the fact that the penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was levied for concealment of particulars of income as the addition of Rs. 10 lacs made on account of unexplained cash, out of Rs.
18,44,620/- found during the search and seizure operation and added to the income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the appeal regarding imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee has himself accepted the order of the AO passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and no further appeal had been filed by him.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not considering the provisions to explanation 271(1)(c) as explained by the Hon’ble SC in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd. vs. CIT in Civil Appeal No. 9772 of 2013 in (2013) 263 CTR (SC) 1 4. That the ld. CIT(A)has erred in law in not appreciating the provisions of explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
5. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts which needs to be vacated and the order of the AO be restored.
6. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any one or more of the ground of the appeal as stated above as and when need for doing so may arise.
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.
During the hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has not pressed the Cross Objection, hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed.
In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee stand dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03/02/2016.