DCIT, New Delhi V. Sunil Agarwal, Delhi

ITA 2770/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7179 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIMA BARNWAL
• Keywords: Gift; Additional evidence; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2770/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DCIT, CC-17, NEW DELHI VS. SH. SUNIL AGRAWAL, ROOM NO. 353, ARA CENTRE, 6068, GALI BATASHA, E-2, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., KHARI BAOLI, NEW DELHI DELHI 6 (PAN: ADHPA0452G) ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. ANIMA BARNWAL, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. ASHU GOEL, FCA DATE OF HEARING : 04-7-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 04-7-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.3.2010 OF LD. CIT(A)-II, DELHI PERTAINING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. LD. CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS. 2,12,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS ON TH E BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR WHICH NO OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AS REQ UIRED UNDER RULE 46A WAS PROVIDED TO THE AO. 2(A) LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 LAKH MADE ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED GIFT. (B) WHILE DOING SO HE HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED INCOME OF RS. 15 LAKHS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. (C) THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE CA NCELLED AND THAT OF AO TO BE RESTORED. ITA NO. 2770/DEL/2010 2 3(A) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D JEWELLERY SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO EXPLAIN THE SROUCE OF ACQUISITION OF JEWELLERY. (B) WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS INCORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE INSTRUCTION NO. 1961 IS ALSO RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMEN T OF SEIZED JEWELLERY IN ADDITION TO THE RELEASE OF SAME AT THE TIME OF SEAR CH. 4. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TEN ABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 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. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTS 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 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: 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. ITA NO. 2770/DEL/2010 3 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/7/2016. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 04/7/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR