ACIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Lachman Dass Bhatia, New Delhi

ITA 1691/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7753 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P K MISHRA
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1691/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, VS. SH. LACHMAN DASS BHAT IA ROOM NO. 353, ARA CENTRE, 31-B, RAJPUR ROAD, E-2, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., CIVIL LINE, DELHI NEW DELHI (PAN: AAFPB3770K) ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. AMIT JAIN, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. P.K. MISHRA, CA DATE OF HEARING : 19-5-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 01-06-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2009 OF LD. CIT(A)-II, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1(A) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- MADE ON ACC OUNT OF UNEXPLAINED BANK ENTRIES WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED TH E BANK ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR VER IFICATION AND EXAMINATION. 1(B) THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING FRESH E VIDENCE IN FORM OF BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD TO AO ON THIS MATTER IN TERMS OF RULE 46A. 2(A) LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND IN THE C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,59,394/- M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS ASSETS/ CLOSING STOCK ON THE BASIS OF FRESH EVIDENC E FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING BEFORE HIM. ITA NO.1691/DEL/2009 2 2(B) THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD TO THE AO IN TERMS OF RULE 46A WHILE ACCEPTING FRESH E VIDENCE. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE SHEET OF CALCULAT ION OF TAX EFFECT FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH SHOWS THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS RS. 7,83,174/-. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND TH AT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-, THERE FORE, 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. 142/2007-ITJ (PT.) BY THE CBDT. FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PARA NOS. 3 & 10 OF THE AFORESAID CBDTS C IRCULAR 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/ 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. ITA NO.1691/DEL/2009 3 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/06/2016. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 01/06/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR