DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s B.B. Corporate Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1771/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6522 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Tax effect
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R ITA NO. 1771/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 2(1), VS. M/S B.B. CORPORATE SERVICES (P) LTD., ROOM NO. 398D, W-7B/102, MANSA RAM PARK, C.R. BUILDING, UTTAM NAGAR, DELHI NEW DELHI (PAN: AAACB5002C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. S.K. JAIN, DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANJAY GUPTA, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL WHICH IS EMAN ATE FROM THE ORDER DATED 24.1.2011 OF LD. CIT(A)-V, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UND ER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 3,50,000/- MADE U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL IGNORING THAT: A) SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE AFFORDED TO THE ASSES SEE BUT IT FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF SHARE CAPITAL. NO DOCUMENT WAS FURNISHED EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS T O PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS O F TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE THE PRE REQUISITE CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN U/S. 68 OF TH E I.T. ACT. B) THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO BEFORE ADMITTI NG THE SAME WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE UNDER R ULE 46A OF THE I.T. ACT. 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 5,02,642/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASE IN CURRENT LIABI LITIES. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SOLELY RELYING ON THE ORDER OF COMPANY LAW BOARD AND NO OTHER DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF INCREASE IN LIABILITY OR THE EXPENSES CLAIMED WAS FURNISHED EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. MOREOVER, THE QUESTION BEFOR E THE AO WAS TO DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER THE LIABILITY WAS ASCERTAINED OR NOT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, THE AO RIGHTLY DISALLOWED T HE INCREASE IN CURRENT LIABILITIES. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 21,68,462/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF 15% OF TO TAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IGNORING THAT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE / BOO KS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIG HT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME B EFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS STATED TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS AS FIXED BY THE CBDT. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE MAY BE DISMISSED ON THIS ACCOUNT. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE AO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. AFTER PERUSING THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES A PPEAL IS BELOW THE LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS, AS FIXED BY THE CBDT AND, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMEN TS APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 ISSUED VIDE F.NO. 279/MISC. 3 142/2007-ITJ (PT.) BY THE CBDT. FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE, 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 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 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. 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 4 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 IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/03/2017. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 03/03/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR