Income-tax Officer, New Delhi V. Vishal Puri, Delhi

ITA 1018/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5426 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVIKANT GUPTA
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1018/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. VISHAL PURI, WARD 59(2), 14, SADBHAVANA APARTMENT, D-BLOCK, I.P. EXTENSION, NEW DELHI VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110 002 (PAN: AGYPP8263C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. RAVI KANT GUPTA, S R. DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL WHICH IS EMAN ATE FROM THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2014 OF LD. CIT(A)-19, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UND ER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE AMOUNT OF IMPOSITION OF P ENALTY ON THE BASIS OF HIS EARLIER DECISION OF APPEAL ON THE QUANTUM ADDIT ION IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THAT O RDER BEFORE ITAT. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY ALL THE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF T HE APPEAL. 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST BUT NOBODY PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO R ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSES SEE ON THE SAME ADDRESS, THEREFORE, WE 2 ARE DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESS EE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. A FTER PERUSING THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS BEL OW THE LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS, AS FIXED BY THE CBDT AND, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 ISSUED VIDE F.NO. 279/MISC. 142/200 7- ITJ (PT.) BY THE CBDT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE , THE RELEVANT PARA NOS. 3 & 10 OF THE AFORESAID CBDTS 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 HE REUNDER: S NO APPEALS IN INCOME -TAX MATTERS MONETARY L IMIT (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 PRESCR IBED ABOVE. FILING OF APPEAL IN SUCH CASES IS TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 10. THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN HIGH COURTS/ TRIB UNALS. PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED TAX LIMITS IN PARA 3 AB OVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED. APPEALS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERA TIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. 5. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIO N OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE INCOME- TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE AUTHORITIES, T HEREFORE, 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 A MOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS, PRESCRIBED IN THE ABOVE SAID CBDTS INSTRUCTIONS. 3 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE WIT HDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIE W THAT THE SAID INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO B E FILED HENCEFORTH IN TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 26/04/2018. SD/- SD/- (L.P. SAHU) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 26/04/2018 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4