ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2017

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, read with Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into its merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee demonstrated no expenses were incurred to earn dividend income in the relevant year, and previous assessment orders did not find any ambiguity. The CIT(A) ignored these facts.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals), finding that the Revenue failed to prove that the transactions were sham or a colorable device. The CIT(Appeals) had adequately addressed the Assessing Officer's objections and noted that the Assessing Officer had not properly investigated the nature of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition on account of interest on savings bank account. However, the Tribunal remitted the issues of disallowance of expenses and unexplained capital introduced back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The addition on account of house tax payment was partly confirmed and partly deleted by the CIT(A), which was upheld. The Tribunal also directed the AO to re-evaluate the unexplained jewellery based on earlier prevailing rates.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals), finding that the Revenue failed to prove that the transactions were sham or a colorable device. The CIT(Appeals) had adequately addressed the Assessing Officer's objections and noted that the Assessing Officer had not properly investigated the nature of the transactions.