ITO, Ghaziabad V. Shri Lovanshu Bhardwaj, Ghaziabad

ITA 3383/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6748 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 29-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: PUSHKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-1, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3383/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1(4) VS. SH. LOVANSHU BHARDW AJ, CGO-I, HAPUR ROAD, S/O SH. DR BHARDWAJ, GHAZIABAD H-487, GOVINDPURAM, GHAZIABAD (PAN: AKSPB5437E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. FR MEENA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. PUSHKAR PANDEY, ADV. ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 28.3.2016 OF LD. CIT(A, MUZAFFRNAGAR P ERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDE R:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FA CTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,84,000/- MADE ON AC COUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED T O PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENT FURNISHED EVEN AFTE R SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES ALLOWED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON F ACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,99,500/- AS THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASS ESSEE DISCHARGED HIS ONUS BY FURNISHING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CASH DEPOSIT WHEN THE ASSESS EE 2 COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENT FURNISHED BY PRODUCING THE PERSON CONCERNED FOR EXAMINATION WHEN CALLED BY THE AO. 4. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SE T ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION STATING THEREIN THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS BELOW PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS, HENCE, HE RE QUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. 3.1 HOWEVER, THE LD. SR. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. I NOTE THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE 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 RELEVAN T PARA NOS. 3 & 10 OF THE AFORESAID CBDTS CIRCULAR ARE 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: 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 MONETARY LIMIT S PRESCRIBED ABOVE. FILING OF APPEAL IN SUCH CASES IS TO BE DECI DED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 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 INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL 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 AUTHORITIES, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN/ NO T PRESSED THE PRESENT APPEAL, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTI ONS SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE AMOUN T 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, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. I AM ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID INSTRUCTIONS ARE APP LICABLE FOR THE PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN TRIBUNAL. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/02/2017. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 02/02/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4