Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI J.S. REDDY
Date of Hearing : 20-01-2016 Date of Order : 03-02-2016
ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. The Department has filed the Appeal and Assessee has filed the Cross Objection which is emanate from the Order dated 13.6.2014 of Ld. CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2006-07. The grounds raised in the revenue’s appeal reads as under:-
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting addition of Rs. 20,36,333/- made by the AO of undisclosed income without appreciating the fact that the addition was made on the basis of information provided by the investigating wing of the department during search operation and in the statement and data gathered during search revealed that the assessee is one of the beneficiary of accommodation entry.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in directing the AO to consdier initiation of appropriate proceedings on receipt of concrete incriminating information or evidence from the Director of Income Taxd (Inv.) without appricating the fact that the DCIT, Central Circle-46, Mumbai has provided the information on the basis of search conductred by the investigation wing of the Department and the reopening was made on the basis of said information.
The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.
3. We find that Revenue in the Grounds of Appeal before the Tribunal has challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 20,36,333/- raised vide ground no. 1, as aforesaid.
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 (in S No Appeals in Income-tax matters 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.” 5. 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, 6. 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.
ASSESSEE’S CROSS OBJECTION
As far as Assessee’s Cross Objection is concerned, the same is was not pressed by the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee, hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed.
In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross Objection stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03/02/2016.