ACIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Raj Kumar Jain, New Delhi

ITA 2718/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7084 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PANKAJ VIDYARTHI
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 2717 TO 2718/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2001-02 TO 2002-03 ACIT-CC-12, VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR JAIN, ROOM NO. 330, ARA CENTRE, H-78, SOUTH EXTENSION, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., PART-I, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI (PAN: AALPJ6435F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. PANKAJ VIDYARTHI, C IT(DR) RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 18-08-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 05-09-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS BOTH DATED 31.3.2010 OF LD. CIT(A)- I, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2002-03. SINCE THE ISS UE INVOLVED IN THE THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL, HENCE, THEY ARE B EING CONSOLIDATED AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF B REVITY. 2. THE COMMON GROUND RAISED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS R EAD AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN UTTE R CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46-A AS ENOUGH OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN ALLOWING RELI EF BY WAY OF TREATING THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME AS AGRICULTURAL INC OME WHEREAS ITA NOS. 2717&2718/DEL/2010 2 HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD JAIN ITA NOS. 2967 TO 2973/DEL/2008 HAS RULE D THAT ASSESSEE HAS TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF INDULGING IN AG RICULTURAL ACTIVITIES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY / ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE O F THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE, NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INV OLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE W OULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE FORE, WE ARE DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEAR ING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD. AT THE THRESHOLD, WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVEN UE APPEALS IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTS APPEALS ARE 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 PARA NOS. 3 & 10 OF THE AFORESAID CBDTS C IRCULAR ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/ SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY L IMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER: ITA NOS. 2717&2718/DEL/2010 3 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 CASES 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 SPECIFIED TAX LIMITS IN PARA 3 ABOVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED. APPEALS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTI ONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEA L WAS FILED. 5. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIO N OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE AUTHORI TIES, 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 ABOVE SAID CBDTS INSTRUCTIONS. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD HA VE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE ALS O OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN TRIBUNAL. ITA NOS. 2717&2718/DEL/2010 4 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/09/2016. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 05/09/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR