ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Inderjeet Singh, New Delhi

ITA 4028/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2757 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2011
• 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 PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4028/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 ITO, WARD 32(3) VS. SHRI INDERJET SINGH SURI, ROOM NO. 337-C, A-1/72, LAJPAT NAGAR-I CR BUILDING, NEW DELHI 24 NEW DELHI (PAN: AARPS3600H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. D R RESPONDENT BY : SH. SATYEN SETHI, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 21-12-2015 DATE OF ORDER : 04-01-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.6.2011 OF LD. CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTME NT READ AS UNDER: I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCO UNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE BEING PRODU CED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM OF INCOME HAVING BEEN RECEIVED FROM CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6 ,15,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN BANKS AS NO CONFIRMATION OF CREDIT ENTRIES IN BANK ACCOUNTS WER E FURNISHED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO.4028/DEL/2011 2 III) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR A MEND ANY / ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COUR SE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE AS SESSEE, SH. SATYEN SETHI ADVOCATE HAS STATED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS APP EAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTS 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. 4. LD. SR. DR, SHRI T. VASANTHAN, DID NOT CONTROVER T THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, 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 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 ITA NO.4028/DEL/2011 3 THIS SUBJECT, OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEA L WAS FILED. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/1/2016. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 04/1/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR