ITO Ward 25 (2), V. Neelam Jain,

ITA 3308/DEL/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4104 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: PUJA ANAND
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 69C; 68

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, ACOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3308/DEL/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999-2000 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SMT. NEELAM JAIN, WARD 25(2), C-3/75B, LAWRENCE ROAD, ROOM NO. 310-D, DELHI 110 035 3 RD FLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAGPJ 7223E] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. FR MEENA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : MS. PUJA ANAND, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 10-08-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 10-08-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.4.2007 OF LD. CIT(A)-XXIV, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2468750/- U/S 68 OF TH E IT ACT, 1961 AND SEQUEL ADDITION OF RS. 12343/- U/S 69C OF THE A CT ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN OF PRO OF U/S 68 OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PAPER TR AIL COMPRISES DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE GENERATED BY THE PARTIES CONCE RNED THEMSELVES, THEREFORE, SUCH EVIDENCE IS SELF SERVIN G. MOREOVER, THE MERE FACT THAT PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED IN CHEQUE DOE S NOT ESTABLISHES THE NATURE OF THE RECEIPT UNDER CONSIDE RATION. THEREFORE, IT IS PERTINENT TO IGNORE THE OBVIOUS AND TO TAKE I NTO CONSIDERATION THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHICH IN THIS CASE WERE TH E FINDINGS GIVEN ITA NO.3308/DEL/2007 2 BY DCIT CCV-3 IN HIS ORDER U/S. 158BD IN THE CASE O F BISHAN CHAND MUKESH KUMAR. 2. LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FINDINGS G IVEN IN THE CASE OF M/S BISHAN CHAND MUKCSH KUMAR WHERE IT WAS INFERRED , IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, THAT SUCH FIRM DID NOT CA RRY OUT AN) JEWELLERY, BUSINESS. SUCH FINDINGS WERE EMPLOYED IN THE INSTANT CASE TO HOLD THAT IF M/S BCMK DID NOT DO ANY GENUIN E JEWELLERY BUSINESS. THEN HOW THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE PARITES WITH SUCH FIRM, CAN BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINE. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD AN}' OTHER GR OUND OF APPEAL. 2. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN T HE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTS AP PEAL 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. FO R THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PARA NOS. 3 & 10 OF THE AFORESAID CBDT S CIRCULAR 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. 10. THIS INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN HIGH COURTS/ ITA NO.3308/DEL/2007 3 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 10/08/2016. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 10/8/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR