ITO, New Delhi V. Shri Sunil Kumar Goel Prop., New Delhi

ITA 4617/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3508 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 19-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4617/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ITO, WARD 29(1) VS. SH. SUNIL KUMAR GOEL, NEW DELHI 1949, KUCHA CHELAN, ROOM NO. 103, DRUM SHPAE KHARI BAOLI, DELHI 110 006 BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAQPG1271P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. N.K. BANSAL, SR. D R ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANJAY GUPTA, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL WHICH IS EMAN ATE FROM THE ORDER DATED 28.6.2012 OF LD. CIT(A)-XXV, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UND ER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,24,525/- DESPITE THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND THE SAME WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONL Y BY ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SALE FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY DOES NO T ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EXEMPTION CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PURCHASE RESIDENT IAL PROPERTY OR KEPT THE SALE PROCEED IN THE NOTIFIED SCHEME WITH BANK AS PER REQ UIREMENTS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIGHT TO AMEND, MODIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFOR E OR DURING THE HEARING THIS APPEAL. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS STATED TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS AS FIXED BY THE CBDT. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE MAY BE DISMISSED ON THIS ACCOUNT. 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. 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 20,00,00 0/ - 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. 3 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 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 IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/04/2017. SD/- SD/- ( ANADEE NATH MISSHRA ) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19/04/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4