ITO, Rohtak V. Sh. Narender Kumar Prop., Rohtak

ITA 3889/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8190 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BANITA DEV NARENSR
• Keywords: Gift; Question of law; Block assessment; Tax effect
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3889/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SHRI NARENDER KUMAR, PR OP., WARD-1, ROHTAK. M/S SUDERSHAN BULK CARRIER, BABRA MOHALLA, ROHTAK. PAN NO. ABLPK0524F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS BANITA DEV NAREN,SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE. ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. IT IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DATED 10 TH JULY, 2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. VIDE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE PLACED ON RECORD, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS RS.5,00,665/- ON WHICH TAX EFFECT IS AMOUNTING TO R S.83,433/-. THEREFORE, THE DEPARTEMTNAL APPEAL DESERVES TO BE D ISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT. 3. LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSION OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT CSE IS NOT MORE THAN RS. 2 LAC. COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WI TH THE ABOVE REPLY ACCORDING TO WHICH TOTAL DEMAND RAISED AGAINST THE ASSESEE IS A SUM OF RS.1,24,510/- AND INCOME-TAX DEMAND IS ONLY RS.83,4 33/- AND THE OTHER PART RELATES TO INTEREST LEVIED U/S234A TO 234D. ITA NO. 3889/D/09 2 4. ACCORDING TO THE C.B.D.T. INSTRUCTIONS NO. 2 DAT ED 24.10.2005, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. FOR THIS PURPOSE RELIANCE MAY BE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN CASE OF SHRI VIKRAM BHATNAGAR ITA NO. 60/D/2002, ORDER DATED 10-3- 2006. 5. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT RECENTLY THE HONBLE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 1.8.2007 IN ITA NO. 683/2007 IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MANISH BHAMBRI HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL VI DE WHICH THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS REFUSED TO BE ENTERTAINED BECAUSE OF LOW TAX EFFECT. THE SAID ORDER OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE:- THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER DATED 8TH AUG UST, 2006 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH 'D' IN IT(SS) NO. 513/DEL/2003 RELEVANT FOR THE BLOCK PERI OD 1ST APRIL, 1990 TO 14TH FEBRUARY, 2001. THE QUESTION THAT AROSE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE AMOUNTS WERE NOT EXPLAINED, TAX WAS LEVIE D. IN APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE VIEW CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT TH E EXPLANATION GIVEN BY HIM WAS ACCEPTABLE AND, IN ANY CASE, THE A SSESSEE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO RECOLLECT EACH AND EVERY ENTR Y MADE IN THE BANK. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE IS R S.30,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AND RS.83,000/- FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S ALREADY ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO A GIFTOFRS. 60,000/-. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),- AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT IN VIEW OF INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CBDT WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.L LAC, THE DEP ARTMENT SHOULD ITA NO. 3889/D/09 3 NOT FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE PRES ENT CASE, THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.L LAC. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANC ES, THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL. THE REVENUE, FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL, HAS COME UP BEFORE US UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961. IT IS CONTENDED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RE VENUE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS A FACT FINDING AUTHORITY AND SHOULD HAV E ADJUDICATED THE MATTER ON MERITS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT AT ALL SUBSTANTIAL AND THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE IS QUITE INSIGNIFICANT, CONSIDERING THAT THE CASE IS ONE OF A BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE INCOM E TAX DEPARTMENT TO GO ON BURDENING THE TRIBUNAL, THE COU RT WITH EVERY CASE RIGHT UP TO THE END. APART FROM BURDENING THE TRIBUNAL AND COURTS, IT ALSO CAUSES AVOIDABLE EXPENSES TO THE AS SESSEE. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY FOR L EGAL FEES AND MERELY BECAUSE THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT HAS GO T UNLIMITED RESOURCES, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION THAT EVERY CAS E SHOULD BE DRAGGED ON. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL BECAU SE OF THE INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THE MATTER. NO SUB STANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THIS APPEAL. 6. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED BEING UN-ADMITTED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX E FFECT. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02.02.2 010 SD/- SD/- (G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA) (I.P. BANSAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: *DK ITA NO. 3889/D/09 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR