DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Mahagun Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2596/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6913 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 26-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPIKA MITTAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Tax effect
• Section: 153A; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADI N. MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2596/DEL/2014 AY: 2004-05 DCIT VS. M/S MAHAGUN TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, 66, VIVEK VIHAR, DELHI-9 5 NEW DELHI (PAN: AACCB3143L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. DEEPIKA MITTAL, CIT(DR) . RESPONDENT BY : NONE PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.2.2014 OF LD. CIT(A), NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS O F THE CASE IN TREATING THE ADDITION MADE TO BE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153A OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN HOLDING THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE DIST URBED AS THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING SE ARCH. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,31,000/- MADE BY AO ON ITA NO. 2596/DEL/2014 2 ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARE APPLICA TION MONEY U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 4.(A) THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. (B) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD, ALTER OR AM END ANY / ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, AS SESSEE, NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUT E THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR A DJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE ARE DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, A FTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT S APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 ISSUED VIDE F.NO. 279/MISC. 142/2007 -ITJ (PT.) BY THE CBDT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PA RA NOS. 3 & 10 OF THE AFORESAID CBDTS CIRCULAR ARE REPRODUCED AS UND ER:- ITA NO. 2596/DEL/2014 3 3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/ SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY L IMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER: S NO APPEALS IN INCOME -TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS) 1 BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 10,00,000/- 2 BEFORE HIGH COURT 20,00,000/- 3 BEFORE SUPREME COURT 25,00,000/- IT IS CLARIFIED THAT AN APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED MERELY BECAUSE THE TAX EFFECT IN A CASE EXCEEDS THE MONETA RY LIMITS PRESCRIBED ABOVE. FILING OF APPEAL IN SUCH C ASES IS TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 10. THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN HIGH COURTS/ TRIBUNALS. PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE SPECIF IED TAX LIMITS IN PARA 3 ABOVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED. APPEALS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERA TIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. 4. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIO N OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE AUT HORITIES, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE P RESENT APPEAL, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTIONS SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS, PRESCRIBED IN THE A BOVE SAID CBDTS INSTRUCTIONS. 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE ITA NO. 2596/DEL/2014 4 WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICAB LE FOR THE PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN TRIBUNAL. ACC ORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/7/2016. SD/- SD/- (ANADI N. MISHRA) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27/7/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR