ITO Ward-23 (2), New Delhi V. Anuj Mehta, New Delhi

ITA 2806/DEL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6612 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHANJAY SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Tax effect
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I TA NO . 2806/DEL/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999 - 2000 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 23(2), NEW DELHI VS. SH. ANUJ MEHTA, S - 217, GREATER KAILASH - II, NEW DELHI 110048 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. S.K. JAIN, DR REVENUE BY: SHRI. DHANJAY SINHA, ADV DATE OF HEARING 28/02/ 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 / 02 / 2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI , A . M . 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - IV, NEW DELHI DATED 31.12.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT (A) REFERRED IN BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,43,255/ - MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF INCOME TAX 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE F ACT THAT THE A.O. WAS IN HIS POWER TO EXAMINE THE REAL SALE OF THE JEWELLERY DECLARED UNDER THE VDIS AS PER THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE IT AT IN THE CASE OF MR. MANOJ AGGARWAL VS DCTT IT SS NO. 404, 405, 452/DEL/ 2003. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW ( AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT MR. MANOJ AGGARWAL AND MR MUKESH AGGARWAL AND BISHAN CHAND AGGARWAL WRE NOT DOING ANY REAL BUSINESS, BUT WERE ONLY DOING THE BUSINESS OF GIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE TACT THAT MR, MANOJ AGGARWAL AND MR BISLIAN CHAND AGGARWAL WERE DIRECTORS IN M/S BEMCO JEWELLERS (P) LTD AND ALL THE TRANSACTIONS IN M/S BEMCO JEWELLERS PVT LTD WERE HELD AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CTT(A) IN THE APPEAL NO, DEL/C IT A2/02 - 03/204 VIDE ORDER DT 21/5/2003 IN THE CASES OF MR. MANOJ AGGARWAL AND M/S BEMCO JEWELLERS ( F) LTD. 5 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT IT WAS PROVED CONCLUSIVELY BY THE AC) OF M/S BISHAN CHAND MUKESH KUMAR THAT THE PAGE 2 OF 3 ASSESSEE WAS NOT DOING ANY REAL BUSINESS OF PURCHASE OR SALE OF JEWELLERY BUT ONLY PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIOUS PERSONS, 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR BILLS / VOUCHERS FOR THE A.Y 95 - 96. 96 - 97, 97 - 98, 2000 - 01 OR 2001 - 02 WERE EVER PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. M/S BISLIAN CHAAD MUKESH KUMAR BEFORE THE AO, DCIT, CEIITRAL CIRCL E - 3, DELHI. 7. ON THE F ACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE M/S BISHAN CHAND MUKESH KUMAR NEVER PRODUCED ITS AUDITOR BEFORE THE AO.D CTT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, DELHI AND EVEN THE ADDRESS OF THE AUDITOR WAS NEVER GIVEN TO THE DEPARTMENT. 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE RATIO OF THE CASE OF M/S . IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE RATIO OF THE CASE OF M/S. SMC SHARE BROKER LTD 288 ITR 345 IS NOT DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 9. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO FACTS AND LAW. 3. AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING ITSELF, THE LD. DR BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10TH DECEMBER, 2015 HAS DECIDED THAT THE REVENUE WOULD NOT PREFER AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. THEREFORE, HE PLEADED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BE DECIDED AS PER THE INSTRUCTION OF THE CBDT. LD AR ALSO REITERATED SAME FACTS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL. WE FIND THAT THE C BDT VIDE CIRCULAR DATED 10.12.2015 HAS REVISED THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : - 3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER : - SL.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 MONETARY LIMITS PRESCRIBED ABOVE. FILING OF APPEAL IN SUCH CASES IS TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. PAGE 3 OF 3 5. WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVES IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS BELOW RS.10 LAKHS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE INCOME - TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE AUTHORITIES, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN/NOT PRESSED THE PRESENT APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTION SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, CIRCULAR NO.21 DATED 10.12.2015 WILL APPLY TO ALL PENDING APPEALS. THEREFORE THE PRECEDENT, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE AS THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAIN ABLE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 / 02 / 2017 . - SD/ - - SD/ - ( H.S.SIDHU ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28 / 02 / 2017 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI