ACIT, New Delhi V. Ms. Tanvi Rastogi, New Delhi

ITA 1547/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6541 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Keywords: Business income; Tax effect

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. 1547/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1) VS. MS. TANVI RASTOGI, NEW DELHI 15, 1 ST FLOOR, NRI COMPLEX, ROOM NO. 1302, 13 TH FLOOR, MANDAKINI GREATER KAILASH-IV E-2, PRATYKSHYA KAR BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110 048 SHAYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJEE MARG, (PAN: AJXPR5662F) CIVIC CENTRE, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 08-3-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 08-3-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2013 OF LD.CIT(A)-XXIII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IMPOSED ON THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THE PROFIT OF RS. 28,69,004/-, EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF STOCK IN TRADE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HERSELF H AS ACCEPTED THE ADDITION MADE, BY NOT AGITATING THE QUANTUM ADDITIO N BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 2. ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IMPOS ED, WHEN AO IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT, THE PROFIT ON SALE OF STOC K IN TRADE IS LIABLE TO BE ITA NO. 1547/DEL/2014 2 TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME, WHICH WAS CALCULATED AT R S. 28,69,004/- BY THE AO. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF H EARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST, BUT THE SAME WAS RETURNED BACK. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND TH E ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEF UL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSES SEE, THEREFORE, WE ARE DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, A FTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 3. WE FIND THAT REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 28,69,0 04/- VIDE GROUND NO. 1, AS AFORESAID. 4. 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 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/ ITA NO. 1547/DEL/2014 3 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/03/2016. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 08/03/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR