DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMAN SINGH SIDHU, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers

ITA 95/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 November 2023AY 2011-12Bench: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)4 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 held that the tax effect of the deletion made by the CIT(A) was less than Rs. 50 lacs. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted a significant portion of additions made on account of unexplained deposit entries in the assessee's bank account. The CIT(A) had deleted additions totaling Rs. 1,26,81,732/- out of a total disallowance of Rs. 1,52,48,409/-.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the revenue's appeal before the Tribunal based on the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not Applicable

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 23/11/2023Pronounced: 23/11/2023

ORDER

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-30, New Delhi dated 27.10.2015 pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12.

The grievance of the assessee read as under :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has in admitting and relying on additional evidence n relation to unexplained deposit entries totaling to AUD43538 25 (equivalent to Rs. 18,42,870/-) in the bank account of assessee with Commonwealth Bank Australia in contravention to Rule 46A without considering the fact that no details were filed by the assessee before the AO, though sufficient opportunity was given to the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings, 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the additions of deposited entries of USD6091.92 (Equivalent to Rs. 257.852/-1, out of the total addition made on account of unexplained deposit entries totaling to AUD43538 25 [equivalent to Rs. 18,42,870/-), though assesses has neither furnished any evidence regarding the receipt of above mentioned USD during the assessment proceedings nor any evidence alongwith the application under rule 46A.

On facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 5.07.053 to reconcile the figures regarding claim of the assessee for deposits entries of AUD19555 26 (Equivalent to Rs. 8,27,731/-), and ordering AO to delete the amount to the extent it is reconciled as it is not in purview of CIT (A) to restore back the issue to the file of AO.

4. On facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made for unexplained deposit entries, in the bank account of assessee, of Rs. 5, 07.053/- out of total addition made at Rs. 1,83,26,166/- by treating it as capital receipt received on account of compensation of death of assessee's family members in Uphar Cinema Tragedy pursuant to the order of Delhi High court. Whereas during the Remand Report proceedings the assessee was asked to furnish specific provisions of Income Tax Act under which exemption from compensation has been claimed but the assessee did not furnish any specific explanation in this regard.

5. That the order of the CIT (A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law.

6. That the grounds of appeal

are without prejudice to each other.

7. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

3. On perusal of the order of the CIT(A) read with the grounds of appeal we find that the CIT(A) deleted the addition to the extent of Rs.12681732/- out of total disallowance of Rs.15248409/-. The revenue is aggrieved by the deletion of the addition to the extent of Rs.12681732/-.

4. In our considered view the tax effect on the impugned deletion is less than Rs. 50 lacs and, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019.

This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the revenue to approach the Tribunal as per the provisions of law, should it feel that the tax effect is more than Rs. 50 lakhs.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 23.11.2023 in the presence of Ld. CIT DR.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →