ACIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Umesh Gupta, New Delhi

ITA 3832/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3199 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAVEEN CHANDRA
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3832/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ACIT, CIRCLE 39(1), VS. SH. UMESH GUPTA, ROOM NO. 2205, E-2 W-33, GREATER KAILASH, BLOCK, CIVIC CENTRE, PART-I, NEW DELHI - 48 J.L. NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI 110 002 (PAN: AAEPG4743J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, CI T(DR) ASSESSEE BY : SH. ANIL KUMAR GUPTA , CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL WHICH IS EMAN ATE FROM THE ORDER DATED 04.3.2013 OF LD. CIT(A)-XXVIII, NEW DELHI PERTAINI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE REPRODUCED A S UNDER:- I) THAT THE LD .CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DELETI NG THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN ONE OF THE ASSE SSEE'S COMPANIES, NAMELY M/S UMKAL HEALTHCARE PVT LTD NO', APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER STATE MENT BY DR.UMESH GUPTA IN WHICH HE HAD ADMITTED THAT HE HAD INTRODUCED HIS OW N INCOME EARNED THROUGH UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN THE GUISE OF SHARE CAPITAL/S HARE APPLICATION MONEY. II) THAT THE LD .CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DELET ING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN ONE OF THE ASSESSE E'S COMPANIES, NAMELY MIS UMKAL HEALTHCARE PVT LTD NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT 2 PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENE SS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND HENCE WERE VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED AT THE TIME OF S EARCH PROCEEDINGS. III) THAT THE LD .CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE BASED ON MATERIAL GATHERED BY TH E AO AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RETRACTING HIS STATEMENT RECOR DED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. IV) THAT THE LD .CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN RESTR ICTING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL ELEMENT TOWARDS USAGE OF TELEPHONE, CAR AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES TO 10% AS AGAINST 20% DISALLOWED BY THE AO . V) THAT THE LD .CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DELETI NG THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ) ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL ELEMENT TOWARDS CONVEYANCE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 18785/-. VI) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DELETI NG THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO SUMMARILY ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY PASSING A CRYPTIC, UNREASONED, NONSPEAKING ORDER. VII) THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDI CE TO EACH OTHER. VIII) THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED A CHART SHOWING THE TAX EFFECT, MENTIONING THEREIN THAT THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO IS RS. 30,78,098/- AND TAX ON THE SAME COMES TO RS. 9 ,23,430/-, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS AS FIXED BY THE CB DT. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED ON THIS ACCO UNT. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE AO. 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. AFTER PERUSING THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES A PPEAL IS BELOW THE LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS, AS FIXED BY THE CBDT AND, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMEN TS 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 CO NVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT 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 HE REUNDER: 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 LIMITS PRESCR IBED 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/ TRIB UNALS. PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED TAX LIMITS IN PARA 3 AB OVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED. APPEALS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERA TIVE 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, T HEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE PRESENT APPEAL, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTIONS SINCE THE 4 TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE A MOUNT 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, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE WIT HDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIE W THAT THE SAID INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO B E FILED HENCEFORTH IN TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24/05/2017. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24/05/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR