DCIT cir-10(1), New Delhi V. Glaze Trading India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1977/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2491 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Tax effect; Tax effect; Capital Gains

Judgement Text

1 ITA no. 1977/Del/2019 DCIT Vs. Gleze Trading India Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. _1977/DEL/2019 [Assessment Year: 2015-16 DCIT Circle 10(1), New Delhi. Vs M/s Glaze Trading India Pvt. Ltd., D-28, RRA India, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049. PAN:AACCG1013A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Department by Shri Prabhat Ranjan, Sr. DR Assessee by Sh. Dipanshu Agarwal, Adv. Date of hearing 12.05.2022 Date of pronouncement 12.05.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the Department, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-4, New Delhi, dated 21.12.2018, pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,14,20,302/- made by 2 ITA no. 1977/Del/2019 DCIT Vs. Gleze Trading India Pvt. Ltd. the AO out of the business promotion expenses in the form of distribution of gifts/goods claimed to have been to various persons/distributors for the purpose of business. 1.a) Whether the Ld. CIT(A), in deleting the disallowance out of the business promotion expenses, has failed to appreciate the fact that the AO was justified in disallowing a reasonable proportion of such expenses on account of the failure of the assessee to furnish verifiable details in the form of complete addresses of the alleged distributors and also to substantiate the nexus of the expenditure with the business of the assessee. 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld C1T(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3.00,000/- made by the AO on account of disallowance out of “Printing & Stationery Expenses”. 2.a) Whether the Ld CIT(A), in deleting the disallowance out of the “Printing & Stationery Expenses” has failed to appreciate the fact that the AO was justified in disallowing a reasonable amount out of such expenses as no evidence beyond self-generated vouchers were produced by the assessee and most of the expenses claimed under the said head were paid in cash. 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,30,115/- under the head “Long Term Capital Gains” made by the AO on account of difference between the amount received by the assessee out of total sale proceeds in respect of sale of property during the year. 3.a) Whether the Ld. C1T(A), in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,30.115/- under the head “Long Term Capital Gains”, has failed to appreciate that the transaction of payment against furniture & fixture claimed to have been made by the co-owner, had no nexus with the share owned by the assessee in the subject property, and therefore, there was no basis for accepting the explanation furnished by the assessee to the effect that the difference was on account of. inter alia, the said payment by the co-owner going to reduce the assesee’s share in total consideration received. 3 ITA no. 1977/Del/2019 DCIT Vs. Gleze Trading India Pvt. Ltd. 4) The appellant crave leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the tax effect involved in the grounds raised by the Revenue is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. Referring to the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8 th August, 2019, revising the monetary limit for filing of the departmental appeals to the ITAT at Rs. 50 lakhs, learned counsel submitted that the instant appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. 3. The learned Sr. DR could not dispute the fact that the tax effect involved in the instant appeal is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. He, however, submitted that the Department has not given up its stand. 4. We have heard rival submissions of the parties. There is no dispute that the tax effect involved in the instant revenue’s appeal is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, in the light of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8 th August, 2019, the departmental appeal is liable to be dismissed, as not maintainable. However, if on a later date, the Revenue finds that the tax effect in dispute in the aforesaid appeal is more than the limit prescribed or it is protected by any of the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular, it shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal to 4 ITA no. 1977/Del/2019 DCIT Vs. Gleze Trading India Pvt. Ltd. recall the order and reinstitution of the appeal for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal shall consider such application, as per the extant law. 5. Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable. Order pronounced in open court on 12.05.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA ) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI