ITO, New Delhi V. Smt. Indra Jha, New Delhi

ITA 1397/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6669 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRAVAN GOTRU
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Tax effect
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1397/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SMT. INDRA JHA, WARD 34(1) G-10, S-5, DILSHAD GARDEN, NEW DELHI DELHI - 110095 ROOM NO. D-3, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2 (PAN: AFOPJ373J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SHRAVAN GOTRU, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. RAVI BHARADWAJ, CA DATE OF HEARING : 29-02-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 29-02-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2013 OF LD. CIT(A)-XXVII, NEW DELHI PERTAININ G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CONVEY ANCE AND REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 6590/- BEING 20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,64,060/- O N ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. ITA NO. 1397/DEL/2014 2 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CAS E THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING THAT THE APPELLANT AND HER HUSBAND ARE SEPARATELY ASSESEE AS PER IT ACT. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING THAT BANK ACCOUNT IS HELD IN THE NAME OF THREE PERSONS AND NOT IN THE NAME OF TWO PERSONS. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALLOW OR AMEN D ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HE ARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 6590/- AND RS. 16, 64,000/- RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 1 & 2, AS AFORESAID. 3. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTS AP PEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 ISSUED VIDE F.NO. 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ (PT.) BY THE CBDT. FO R 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 L IMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER: S NO APPEALS IN INCOME-TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (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 MONETA RY LIMITS ITA NO. 1397/DEL/2014 3 PRESCRIBED 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/ 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 INSTRUCTI ONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEA L WAS FILED. 4. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIO N OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE AUTHORI TIES, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE P RESENT 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 CBDTS INSTRUCTIONS. 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD HA VE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE ALS O OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/2/2016. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 29/2/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 1397/DEL/2014 4