DCIT, Yamunanagar V. Smt. Kavita Chandra, Yamunanagar

ITA 137/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9911 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1458/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 SMT. KAVITA CHANDRA, VS. THE ITO, PROP.M/S. CBM ENGG. WORKS, WARD 3, YAMUNA NAGAR VILLAGE JORIA, YAMUNA NAGAR PAN NO. AEEPC7216G & ITA NO.137/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 THE DCIT VS. SMT. KAVITA CHANDRA YAMUNA NAGAR CIRCLE PROP. M/S CBM ENGINEERING WO RKS YAMUNA NAGAR VILLAGE JORIAN, YAMUNA NAGAR PAN NO. AEEPC7216G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SACHIN JAIN DEPARTMENT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 27/05/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/06/2016 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DT. 30/11/2010. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FI LED ITS RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 3,38,680/-. ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS FRAMED AT AN INCOME OF RS. 45,49,310/- AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWIN G DISALLOWANCES / ADDITION. 1. DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TELEPHONE AND CAR EXPENSES RS. 70,884/- 2. DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNT OF SH. PRABHAT CHANDRA RS. 5 ,000/- 3. DISALLOWANCE OF A/C OF ESI AND PF OF RS.14,527/ - 4. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN BANK RS.41,20,212/- 3. AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE FILED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30/11/2010 DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON 2 ACCOUNT OF ESI AND PF OF RS. 14,527/-, UPHELD THE A DDITION OF RS. 5,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNT OF SHRI. PRABHAT C HANDRA AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WITH REGARD TO ADHOC DISALLOW ANCE OF EXPENSES RELATING TO TELEPHONE AND CAR AND ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN BANK. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVE NUE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1458/CHD/2010. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1- THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDIN G ADDITION OF RS. 14,20,212/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES UNDER SECTION 68/69A OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT GIVI NG FULL BENEFIT OF OPENING BALANCE OF CASH IN HAND AS SOURCE OF DEPOSITS N BANK ACCOUNTS/ M/S. CBM ENGINEERING WORKS. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT GIVI NG FULL BENEFIT FOR SALE OF PLOTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,67,500/- AS SOURCE OF DEPOSITS I N BANK ACCOUNTS / M/S. CBM ENGINEERING WORKS. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT GIVI NG FULL BENEFIT OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK AS SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS / M/S. CBM ENGINEERING WORKS. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDIN G DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE & CAR EXPENSES @ 10% AMOUNTING TO RS. 35, 442/-. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDIN G THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI. PRABH AT CHANDER. 6. AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE STATED THAT GROUND NO. 3 ,4,5 &6 WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME ARE THEREFORE TREATED AS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 RELATE TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 4,20,212/- UPHELD ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND CREDITED IN THE B OOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAIN TAINING TWO PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNTS I.E BANK OF RAJASTHAN , YAMUNANAGAR, BANK ACCOUNT NO. 3690101416740 AND ICICI BANK ACCOUNT NO. 0227015089 35, IN WHICH CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 31,92,720/- AND 1,84,200/- RESPECT IVELY WAS FOUND DEPOSITED ON VARIOUS DATES. BESIDES CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,43,2 92/- WAS ALSO FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCER N OF THE ASSESSEE M/S CBM ENGINEERING WORKS ON VARIOUS DATES. THE AO FOUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO EXPLANATION TO OFFER ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE ABOVE CASH DEPOSITS AND THEREFORE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 41,20,212/- WERE HELD T O BE THE ASSESSEES INCOME 3 FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE IN COME TAX ACT AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALONGWITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS EXPLAINI NG THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK AND THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WIT H M/S CBM ENGINEERING. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS A S FOLLOWS: 1. RS. 3/- LACS FROM THE OPENING CASH BALANCE AVAIL ABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS PER CASH FLOW STATEMENT PREPARED. 2. RS. 10/- LACS BEING CASH RECEIVED FROM ONE MR. M OHINDER SINGH ON ACCOUNT OF AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH HIM TO SELL A PLOT. 3. RS. 4,67,500/- FROM SALE OF TWO PLOTS 4. BALANCE FROM VARIOUS WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK. 10. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANAT ION WITH REGARD TO THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND WITH THE ASSESSEE TO T HE EXTENT OF RS. 2 LACS, THE RECEIPT OF CASH OF RS. 10 LACS AS ADVANCE FROM SH. MOHINDER SINGH AND THE RECEIPT OF CASH FROM THE SALE OF PLOTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,67,500/- BUT DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION OF ATTRIBUTING DE POSITS TO BANK WITHDRAWALS MADE ON VARIOUS DATES, FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WA S NO LINK BETWEEN THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE BANK AND THE CASH DEPOSIT ED ON VARIOUS DATES AND FURTHER ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THE WITHDRAWAL WER E MADE BY ONE SHRI. DUSHYANT SINGH WHO WAS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WERE MADE TO MEET THE DAY TO DAY BUSINESS USE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD . CIT(A) THEREFORE ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF CASH DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF R S. 27 LACS, WHILE THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 14,20,212/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINE D AND ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT WAS UPHELD. 11. BEFORE US LD. AR PLEADED THAT THE IMPUGNED DEPO SIT OF RS. 14,20,212/- ARE EXPLAINED FROM THE WITHDRAWAL MADE FROM THE BANK AC COUNT ITSELF. LD. AR ARGUED THAT CASH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUN TS ON VARIOUS DATES PRIMARILY THROUGH AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE. SH. DUSHYANT TYAGI, IN WHOSE NAME BEARER CHEQUES WERE ISSUED. THIS CASH WAS LATE R ON REDEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES. LD. AR PLEADED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING BY THE REVENUE THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN WA S UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE ELSEWHERE THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDS GROUND . 12. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND COUNTERED THE LD. ARS ARGUMENT BY STATING THAT THE MERE FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE GOES TO PROVE THAT THEY WERE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND NOT HENCE NOT AVAILABLE FOR REDEPOSIT IN THE BANK. 4 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEF ORE US. 14. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A) UPHOLDING CASH DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 14,20,212/-, AS UNEXPLAINED. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AT PARA 5.12 AND 5.14 OF HIS ORDER ARE REPR ODUCED HEREUNDER: 5.12 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE CASH FLOW ST ATEMENT FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT NO. 3690101416740 BANK OF RAJASTHAN AND A/C NO. 24701508935 OF ICICI BANK LTD. AND ALSO THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOKS OF M/S CBM ENGG. AS ALREADY DISCUSSED ABOVE, THERE ARE THREE CASH ENTRIES----RS. 3 LACS BY WAY OF CASH IN HAND, RS. 10 LACS RECEIVED FROM SH. MOHINDER SINGH, RS. 4,67,000/- FROM SALE OF TWO PLOTS. APART FROM THESE, THERE IS A RECEIPT OF RS. 11 LACS FROM M/S CBM ENGG. AND OTH ER MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS SHOWN AS WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK OF RAJASTHAN, ICICI BANK OR M/S CBM ENGG. THE AO HAS REJECTED THE APPELLANTS EXPLANATION OF WITH DRAWALS FROM THE BANKS STATING THAT THESE ARE THIRD PARTY CHEQUES. THE APP ELLANT HAS JUSTIFIED THE SAME STATING THAT MOST OF THESE ARE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY ONE SH. DUSHYANT WHO IS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE APPELLANT. A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECEIPTS FORM THE BANKS WILL REVEAL THAT THESE DO NOT HAVE ANY LINK WITH THE CAS H DEPOSITS MADE ON VARIOUS DATES AS POINTED OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THESE ARE, BY EXCEPTION OF ONE OR TWO, SMALL WITHDRAWALS MADE TO MEET DAY TO DAY BUSI NESS NEEDS OF THE APPELLANT. 5.13 THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT CASH WAS AVAILABLE WITH HER ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK OF RAJASTHAN AND I CICI BANK IS REJECTED IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE WITH REGARD TO S AME OF THESE WITHDRAWALS. (I) THE APPELLANT MADE A DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,80,000/- IN BANK OF RAJASTHAN (BOR) ON 17/04/2006 AND WITHDREW RS. 70,000/- ON THE SAME DA TE. (II) ON 19/04/2006 THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THREE DIF FERENT WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 11,000/-, RS. 10,000/- AND RS. 9,000/- AND AS PER T HE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT THESE HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THREE DIFFERENT PERSON S SH. ASHWANI SHARMA, SH. DUSHYANT TYAGI AND SH. VIJAY BAKSHI. (III) ON 28/04/2006 THE APPELLANT MADE FOUR DIFFERE NT WITHDRAWAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 9 LACS, RS. 10,000/-, RS. 20,000/- AND RS. 30,000/- OUT WHICH THREE WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE MADE BY SH. DUSHYANT AND ONE SH. RAJ KUMAR. (IV) ON 4 TH MAY TWO DIFFERENT WITHDRAWALS RS. 30,000/- AND RS. 20,000/- HAVE BEEN MADE BY SH. DUSHYANT. (V) ON 5 TH MAY TWO DIFFERENT WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 1,80,000/-AND RS. 2 LACS HAVE BEEN MADE, OUT OF WHICH RS. 1,80,000/- HAS BEEN WITHDRAW N BY SH. DUSHYANT AND RS. 2 LACS IN CASH. OTHER SMALL WITHDRAWALS ON DIFFERENT DATES HAVE ALS O BEEN MADE EITHER BY SH. DUSHYANT OR SH. RAJ KUMAR. THUS, NONE OF THESE WITH DRAWALS OTHER THAN RS. 2 LACS CASH WITHDRAWAL ON 09/05/2006 FROM BANK IF RAJASTHA N AND RS. 2 LACS CASH WITHDRAWN FROM ICICI BANK ON 05/09/2006 (THOUGH IN THE CASH FLOWS STATEMENT DATE OF CASH WITHDRAWALS HAS BEEN SHOWN AS 25/09/20 06 WHILE THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT SHOW THAT DATE OF WITHDRAWAL AS 05/09/2006) CAN BE TAKEN TO BE AVAILABLE FOR CASH DEPOSITS AS THESE APPEAR TO BE I N THE NATURE OF BUSINESS WITHDRAWALS. VI) THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 6,50,000/- ON 06/01/2007 IS ACCOMPANIED BY A DEPOSIT OF RS. 6,50,000/- IN M/S CBM ENGG. ON THE SAME DATE FO R WHICH NO SEPARATE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. VII) THE MONEY RECEIVED BY WAY OF SALE OF PLOT AMOU NTING TO RS. 4,67,500/- ON 22/01/2007 IS ACCOMPANIED BY A DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,50, 000/- IN CBM ON THE SAME DATE FOR WHICH NO SEPARATE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE B Y THE AO. THEREFORE, THESE TWO ALSO CANNOT BE TREATED AS AVAILABLE FOR CASH DE POSITS. 5 5.14 MOREOVER, BY APPELLANTS OWN SUBMISSION MAJORI TY OF THESE WITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN MADE BY ONE SH. DUSHYANT TYAGI WHO IS THE EMPL OYEE OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN APPELLANTS ARGUMEN TS THAT THESE WITHDRAWALS WERE AVAILABLE IN CASH FOR DEPOSITS SUBSEQUENTLY AFTER A GAP OF TWO TO THREE MONTHS. THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS WAS ASKED TO LINK THE CASH RECEIPT WITH THE CASH DEPOSITS AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT HOWEVER SUBMITTED MONTHLY CASH FLOW STATE MENT SHOWING CASH IN HAND AND HAS STRESSED UPON THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT WHICH ONLY SHOWS THE OVER ALL CASH AVAILABILITY WITH THE APPELLANT FROM ALL SOURC ES. THIS CASH FLOW STATEMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS OF THE REVENUE AND CAPIT AL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THIS PERIOD HAS NO RELEVANCE. THEREFORE, THIS ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT ENOUGH CASH IN HAND WAS AVAILABLE KE EPING IN VIEW THE VARIOUS CASH WITHDRAWALS OVER THE YEAR SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE CASH DEPOSITS ON VARIOUS DATES IS REJECTED. 15. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS LUCIDLY BROUGHT OUT THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. AS PER THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REPRODUCED AT PAGE 7- 8 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER, THERE WERE IN ALL 14 INSTANCES OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE TWO BANKS AND IN THE BOOKS OF CBM ENGINEERING ON VARIOUS DATES, WHILE WI THDRAWALS FROM BANKS WAS SHOWN IN 33 INSTANCES. OUT OF THE 33 WITHDRAWALS ON LY, TWO WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 2 LACS EACH FROM BANK OF RAJASTHAN AND ICICI BANK WAS MADE IN CASH. THE REST WERE ALL WITHDRAWALS BY CHEQUE SMALL AMOUNTS MADE M OSTLY BY SH. DUSHYANT SINGH AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER AS POIN TED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN MANY CASES SMALL AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN 2 OR 3 TIME S ON A SINGLE DAY BY DIFFERENT PERSONS. FURTHER THE DEPOSITS IN BANK WER E MADE AFTER A GAP OF 2-3 INSTANCES OF WITHDRAWALS. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS OF THE CASE AND T HE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES WE CONCUR WITH THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE WITHDRAWAL W ERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND NOT AVAILABLE FOR REDEPOSIT. 16. MOREOVER, WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) THA T IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAIL OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS PERIOD THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT HAS NO RELEVANCE AND THE ENTIRE WITHDRAWA L CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN REDEPOSITED. MOREOVER AS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THE WITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE SUBSEQUENTLY REDEPOSITED AFTER A GAP OF TWO OR THRE E MONTHS WHICH IS NOT PROBABLE. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE WE FIND HAS NOT BE EN ABLE TO LINK THE CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK WITH CASH DEPOSIT WE THEREF ORE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) TREATING THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 14, 20,212/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUND NO. 1 & 2 OF THE AS SESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 6 18. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ITA NO. 137/CHD/2011 19. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED. 1. WHETHER ON FACTS & IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A)IS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 LACS HOLDING THAT SAID AMOUNT WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE OUT OF WITHDR AWALS MADE BY HER IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD AND THIS FAC T HAS ALSO BEEN ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A)? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE L D. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 LACS ADMITTING THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY HER AS ADVANCE FROM SH. MOHINDER SINGH AS EARNEST MONEY AGAINST SALE OF BUILDING, WH EREAS THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTIRELY UNAWARED WITH THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AN D RECEIPT OF ANY ADVANCE ? 3. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BE SET AS IDE AND THAT OF THE AO MAY BE RESTORED. 20. IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN THIS CASE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMIT OF RS. 10 LAKHS. THUS, IN VIEW O F CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10.12.2015, F.NO. 279/MISC.142/2007-I TJ(PT), GOVERNMENT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTME NT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, THE INSTANT APPEAL D ESERVES TO BE TREATED AS WITHDRAWN / NOT PRESSED. VIDE PARA 10 O F THE ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS, THE CBDT HAS CLARIFIED THAT THIS INST RUCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO B E FILED HENCEFORTH IN ITAT. THE CBDT HAS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THE PENDING APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BELOW THE SPECIFIED TAX LIMITS I.E. RS. 10 LAKHS MAY BE WITHDRAWN / NOT PRESSED BY THE REVENUE . IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS NOT COVERED BY PARA 8 (EXCEPTIONS) OF THE ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS. ACC ORDINGLY, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS WITHDRAWN / NOT PRESSED. 21. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/06/2016. SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 14/06/2016 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR