ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. IME International Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3680/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7429 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3680/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S IME INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. WARD 11(3) 211, NEW DELHI HOUSE, ROOM NO. 374A, CR BUILDING, 27, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI (PAN: AAACI181126) CROSS OBJECTION NO. 259/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 M/S IME INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., VS. INCOME TAX OF FICER, 211, NEW DELHI HOUSE, WARD 11(3), 27, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI (PAN: AAACI181126) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. D R RESPONDENT BY : SH. TARUN KUMAR, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 15-12-2015 DATE OF ORDER : 06-1-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE CROSS OBJECT ION BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.5.2010 OF LD . CIT(A)-XIII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ON THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS WRONG, PERVERSE, ILLEGAL AND A GAISNT THE PROVISIONS OF LAW WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTNACES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS PERVERSE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. ITA NO. 3680/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 259/DEL/2011 2 16,00,000/- U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AS CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION REGARDING RECEIP T OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THE PARTIES MENTIOEND IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT PROVED BEFORE THE AO IN SP ITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESEE BY IGNORI NG ASSESSEES FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE SHARE APPLICANTS FOR VERIFIC ATIONS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SHAR E APPLICANTS ADMITTED BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WING THAT THEY WE RE IN BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AME ND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 16,00,000/- U/S. 6 8 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 VIDE GROUND NO. 2, AS AFORESAID. WE ALSO FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS IMPUGEND ORDER DATED 10.5.2010 VIDE PARA NO. 5 AT PAGE 34 HA S HELD AS UNDER:- 5.ACCORDINGLY, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREA TING RS. 16,00,000/- THE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY T HE APPELLANT AS ITS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THEREFORE THIS GORUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 3. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE 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 ITA NO. 3680/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 259/DEL/2011 3 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/ 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. 4. 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. ITA NO. 3680/DEL/2010 & CO NO. 259/DEL/2011 4 5. 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. 6. AS REGARDS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGEND ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS W ELL AS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/1/2016. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 06/1/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR