ITO , Ward-32(2), New Delhi V. Mukhtiar Singh, New Delhi

ITA 2342/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8768 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Document seized; Tax effect; Documents seized; Capital Gains
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2342/Del/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) Income Tax Officer, Ward-32(2), New Delhi. Vs. Sh. Mukhtiar Singh, H.No.83, Main Bus Stand, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110 068 PAN-BUSPS 0608D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Jasvinder Pal Singh, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Sumit Kumar Verma, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Revenue is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, New Delhi, [Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 28.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2006-07. Grounds taken in this appeal of Revenue are as under: “1. “Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition on account of undisclosed capital gain without appreciating the fact that during search operation conducted by DRI, Mumbai, excel sheet was found from the possession of Zaver Cyprus Dadlani, wherein it was categorically mentioned that sale proceeds of the property sold were also in cash and not recorded in the sale deeds. 2 ITA No.2342/Del/2019 ITO vs. Mukhtiar Singh 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition on account of undisclosed capital gain without appreciating the fact that both M/s Saturn Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Merino Realtors Pvt. Ltd. were purchasers, whereas the assessee is seller, therefore the decision in the case of purchasers could not be applied in the case of seller. 3. The Ld. C1T(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that seized documents have an evidentiary value. From the seized documents it is seen that amount stated therein to be paid by DD/Cheque exactly matches the amount mentioned in the Registered Deed which further emphasizes that the cash transaction mentioned in the seized documents took place and should therefore be taken to be part of sale consideration for computation of capital gains. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing.” (B) At the outset, it was brought to our notice at the time of hearing, by learned Counsel for the Assessee, that tax effect in this appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000/-. Vide recent CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with earlier CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, minimum threshold limit of tax effect for filing of appeals by Revenue in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT", for short) has been enhanced to Rs. 50,00,000/-. In a subsequent clarification issued by CBDT vide F. No. 279/Misc/M- 93/2018-lTJ, dated 20/08/2019, it has been clarified by CBDT that the aforesaid revised monetary limit is also applicable to all pending appeals in ITAT. In view of the foregoing, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Assessee that this appeal is not maintainable. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative for Revenue was in 3 ITA No.2342/Del/2019 ITO vs. Mukhtiar Singh agreement with this. He did not press the appeal. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed being not pressed; and also being not maintainable having regard to aforesaid CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with aforesaid CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 in the light of aforesaid clarification dated 20/08/2019. (C) Before leaving, we clarify that Revenue will be at liberty to approach Income Tax Appellate Tribunal U/s 254(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961; seeking recall of this order and, for restoration of this appeal if it is found that appeal of Revenue is not covered by aforesaid CBDT Circulars dated 08.08.2019 and 11.07.2018. (D) In the result, this appeal by Revenue is dismissed. This order was already pronounced orally on 16 th February, 2022 in the Open Court, in the presence of representatives of both sides, after conclusion of hearing. Now, this written order is signed today on 16/02/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:16.02.2022 PK/Ps 4 ITA No.2342/Del/2019 ITO vs. Mukhtiar Singh Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI