DCIT, Faridabad V. Sh. Makhan Singla, New Delhi

ITA 3859/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7120 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI JAIN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH A: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3859/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, FARIDABAD. VS. SHRI MAKHAN SINGH, 30/6, WEST AVENUE ROAD, PUNJABI BAGH WEST, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAMPL 6058R APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAVI JAIN, CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 22.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.09.2016 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS)(CENTRAL), GURGAON DATED 21.03.2013 INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.24,62,155/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY BY IGNORING THE F ACT THAT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF WHOLE JEWELLERY WHETHER IT IS SEIZED OR NOT. ITA NO.3859/DEL/2013 PAGE 2 OF 3 (II) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, DELETE OR MO DIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING. 2. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFER RED BY THE REVENUE IN VIOLATION OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 D ATED 10.12.2015, WHEREIN THE PECUNIARY LIMIT FOR PREFERRING THE APPE AL BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE ITAT HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED BEYOND RS.10 LAKHS. TH E ABOVE CIRCULAR ON PECUNIARY LIMIT HAS NOW STATUTORY FORCE WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 268A OF THE IT ACT, HENCE, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NO T MAINTAINABLE. 3. THE LD. DR REQUESTED THAT WHILE DISMISSING THE A PPEAL AS NOT MAINTAINABLE, IT MAY BE MADE CLEAR THAT THE PRESENT ORDER WILL HAVE NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE PRESENT APP EAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IN VIOLATION OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 ( SUPRA) IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS SU CH, MAKING IT CLEAR THAT SINCE THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF ON MERITS OF THE APPEAL, BUT DUE TO ABOVE REASON, IT WILL HAVE NO AN Y JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT MA INTAINABLE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016. SD/- SD/- ( L.P. SAHU ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER NEW DELHI, DATED, THE 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2016. /D S/ ITA NO.3859/DEL/2013 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.