ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Vikas Grover, New Delhi

ITA 2146/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6785 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.L.P.SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-214 6/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2008-09) ITO, WARD-33(3), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) VS VIKAS GROVER, COTTAGE NO.14, WEST PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110008. PAN-AKTPG1762E (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. F.R.MEENA, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY NONE ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AS SAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2014 OF CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW D ELHI PERTAINING TO 2008-09 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO F ILE THE FRESH EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A WHEN DURING ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS DESPITE BEING GIVEN NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT FILE COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS/SUBMISSIONS AND DETAILS W.R.T ITS CLAIM. ALSO, THE AO VIDE REMAND REPORT HAD EXPRESSED HIS O BJECTION TO ADMITTING ANY FRESH EVIDENCE U/S 46A. 2. THE CJT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE FRESH EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT IT'S THE ASSESSEE'S DUTY TO INFORM THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS TO THE DEPARTMENT, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE WILLFULLY CHOSE TO NOT TO INT IMATE THE CHANGE OF THE ADDRESS TO THE DEPARTMENT SO AS TO ESCAPE INCOM E TAX PROCEEDINGS. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,52,100/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE NEITHER FILED THE PAN NOR THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE M/S GUJARAT CO OPERATIVE MILK FEDERATION LTD. IN VIEW OF WHICH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HA S REMAINED UN ESTABLISHED, 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,52,100/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT MERE PROOF THAT TRANSACTION WAS BY DATE OF HEARING 19.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.07.2016 I.T.A .NO.-2146/DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 2 CHEQUE OR THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF TH E HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. C ONSIDERING THE AMOUNT AT STAKE FOR THE REVENUE, LD. SR. DR WAS REQUIRED TO A DDRESS CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10TH DECEMBER, 2015 OF CBDT. CONSIDERING THE SAME AND THE FACTS ON RECORD, THE LD. SR. DR REFERRING TO THE DEPARTMENTA L GROUND, SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IS MUCH LESS THAN RS.10 LAKH. WE FIND THAT THE CBDT VIDE THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR DATED 10.12.2015 HAS REVISED THE MONETARY LIMIT TO RS.10 LAKH FOR FILING THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE INCO ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. PARA 3 OF THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR HAS BEEN MADE APPLICABL E VIDE PARA 10 RETROSPECTIVELY. CONSIDERING THE SETTLED LEGAL PRECEDENT THAT THE BO ARDS INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES U/S 268A OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARE BINDING ON THE AUTHORITIES, WE DISMISS THE DEPARTME NTAL APPEAL CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (L.P.SAHU) (DIVA SING H) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSI STANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI