ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Inderpal Singh Sahni, New Delhi

ITA 3949/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7282 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Tax effect

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-3: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3949/DEL/2014 A.Y. : 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. INDERPAL SINGH SAH NI, WARD 33(2), NEW DELHI 2205/64, GURUDWARA ROAD, ROOM NO. 1602, 16 TH FLOOR, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-5 TOWER E-2, DR. SP MUKHERJEE CIVIC CENTRE, JL NEHRU ROAD, NEW DELHI 2 (PAN: AATPS7095L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. KK JAISWAL, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 15-06-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 15-06-2016 O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 29.4.2014 OF LD. CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE FRESH EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A WHEN DURING ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS DESPITE BEING GIVEN NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES, THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT FILE SUBMISSIONS AND DETAILS W.R.T. ITS CLAIM. ALSO THE AO VIDE REMAND PAGE 2 OF 5 REPORT HAD EXPRESSED HIS OBJECTION TO ADMITTING ANY FRESH EVIDENCE U/S. 46A. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,37,800/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 20,43,500/- WITHOUT APPREC IATING THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK, IN VIE W OF WHICH CASH CREDITS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,50,000/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOU RCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK FROM WHICH SUCH AN INVESTMENT WAS MADE. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY / ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF T HE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT BY THE REGISTERED AD POST, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE, NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DI SPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESEN T APPEAL, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSU E NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, I AM DECIDING THE PR ESENT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 3. FROM THE ABOVE, I FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN TH E REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTS A PPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 D ATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 ISSUED VIDE F.NO. 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ (PT.) BY THE CBDT. FOR THE PAGE 3 OF 5 SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PARA NOS. 3 & 10 OF T HE 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 GIVE N 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 LIMITS PR ESCRIBED 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 INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. 4. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BOARDS INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BINDING ON THOSE AUTHOR ITIES, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE PRESE NT 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 A BOVE SAID CBDTS INSTRUCTIONS. 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 21/2015 D ATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE SHO ULD HAVE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I AM ALSO OF PAGE 4 OF 5 THE VIEW THAT THE SAID INSTRUCTIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN TRIBUNAL. ACCORDI NGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/06/2016. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 15/6/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. DR , ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES PAGE 5 OF 5