THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES B: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2175/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 ITO, VS. N.R. REALSTATES (INDIA) P. LTD., WARD 13(1), C.R. BUILDING, 304-JAGRITI ENCLAVE, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. AAACN7132R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTION NO. 100/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 N.R. REALSTATES (INDIA) P. LTD., VS. ITO, 304-JAGRITI ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. WARD 13(1), C.R. BLDG., I.P. ESTATE, AAACN7132R NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. A.K. MONGA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. M.S. SAHNI, ADV. ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, J.M. THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJE CTION BY THE ASSESSEE. BOTH OF THEM ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) DATED 23.2.2010 FOR A.Y. 2001-02. THE DEPARTMENT I N ITS APPEAL IS ASSAILING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR DELETING OF A SUM OF RS. 6 LAKH ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APP LICATION MONEY U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND FURTHER SUM OF RS. 15,000/- ON ACCOU NT OF COMMISSION THEREON. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION IS AS SAILING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ITA NO. 2175/DEL/2010 & CO 100/D/11 2 ON THE GROUND THAT CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDI NG THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WAS ILLEGAL, BAD-IN-LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTIO N AND TIME BAR. 2. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT TH E TAX EFFECT (EXCLUDING INTEREST) OF THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E IS MUCH LESS THAN RS. 3 LAKH. HE SUBMITTED THAT ACCORDING TO THE RECENT DE CISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, NEW LIMIT OF RS. 3 LAKH WILL ALSO BE AP PLICABLE TO ALL PENDING APPEALS IRRESPECTIVE OF DATE OF FILING THE APPEAL. HE, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT. LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FACTUM OF TAX EFFECT (E XCLUDING INTEREST) BEING LESS THAN RS. 3 LAKH. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATIO N, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DATED 2 ND AUGUST, 2010 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S P.S. JAIN AND COMPANY IN ITR 179/1991, WE HOLD THAT DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS UN-ADMITTED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT AND HENCE DISMISSED. 3. NOW, COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER TAKEN GROUND C HALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR OTHERWISE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT RECORDED AN Y SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE WHICH THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PR OCEEDING WAS CHALLENGED. IN FACT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HENCE, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE AS SESSEE DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED CROSS APPEAL TO SAY ITA NO. 2175/DEL/2010 & CO 100/D/11 3 THAT SUCH GROUND HAS BEEN TAKEN AS ADDITIONAL GROUN D BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, WE FOUND THAT CROSS OBJ ECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, AS THE ISSUE RAISED I N IT DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A), HENCE DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.04.201 1 SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) (I.P. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R JUDICIAL MEMBER * KAVITA DATED: 18.04.2011 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT