ITO, Roorkee V. Vinod Kumar, Roorkee

ITA 1961/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6542 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 03-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NITIN KUMAR INSPECTOR
• Assessee Lawyers: KARNESH SHARMA
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

\IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH: JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1961/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YR: 2009-10 INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2, VS. VINOD KUMAR, ROORKEE VILL. BHALSWAGAJ, ROORKEE. PAN: AYUPK 9488 L AND C.O. NO. 291/DEL/2014 ( IN ITA NO. 1961/DEL/2013) ASSTT. YR: 2009-10 VINOD KUMAR, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2, VILL. BHALSWAGAJ, ROORKEE. ROORKEE ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI NITIN KUMAR INSPECTOR. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KARNESH SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 03/03/2016. DATE OF ORDER : 08/03/2016. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M: THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL AND THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2.1.2013, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I, DEHRADUN, RELATING TO A.Y. 2009-10. 2. IN ITS APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS. 11,59,183/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT IN PURCHASE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD 2 NOT RECORDED PURCHASES IN HIS BOOKS, WHICH REMAINS UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF 4,06,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE F ACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHI NESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION OF UNSECURED CASH LOAN. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET-ASIDE AN D OF AO BE RESTORED. 3. THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION MOVED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED BY US, OBSERVING AS UNDER: REJECTED AS DEPARTMENTS APPEAL PRIMA FACIE COVERED BY CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 DT. 10.7.14 TAX EFFECT BEING LESS THAN 10 LAKHS. CO FILED BY ASSES SEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 4. THE RECENT CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10.12 .2015 STIPULATES THAT NO DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, INVOLVING TAX EFFECT BELOW RS.10 LAKHS, SHALL BE FILED BEFORE THE ITAT. PARA 10 OF THE CIRCULAR SPEC IFIES THAT SUCH INSTRUCTION WOULD APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY AND THE PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED TAX LIMIT OF RS.10 LAKH MAY BE WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSED. T HUS, THE PRESENT DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 268A(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HOWEVER, WE MAY CLARIFY THAT IF ON RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVE D IS ABOVE RS.10 LACS OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER, THE CIRCULAR IS NOT APPLICABLE IN VIEW OF EXCEPTIONS CULLED OUT IN THE CIRCULAR, HE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO TAKE SUCH STEPS, AS DEEM FIT, TO RECALL THE ORDER. WE ALSO CLARIFY THAT THIS ORDER WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN ACCEPTANCE BY THE REVENUE ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL AND WILL NOT BE AN ESTOPPEL FOR THE REVENUE TO TAKE UP THE I SSUE INVOLVED IN THIS 3 APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT ON MERITS IF THE TAX EFFECT IN THOSE YEARS IS MORE THAN 10 LAKHS. 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFOREMENTIONED CBDT CIRCUL AR AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 268A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961, WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS OF THE CASES, WE DISMISS THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10.00 LACS. 6. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND STANDS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSES SEES CROSS OBJECTION STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCEMENT IN OPEN COURT ON 08/03/2016. SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) (S.V. MEHROTRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 08/03/2016. *MP* COPY OF ORDER TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.