ITO, New Delhi V. Shri Sanjay Bajaj, New Delhi

ITA 5221/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3427 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 24-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH - G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADI N. MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5221/DEL/2010 AY: 2006-07 ITO VS. SHRI SANJAY B AJAJ, 206, WARD-21(1),ROOM NO. D-3, VIKAS CHAMBE RS, D- BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN D-BLOCK, PRASHANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI 110 002. DELHI 110 0 85. PAN AFFPB5118L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.K. BANSAL, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE PER ANADI N. MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ORDER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST ORDE R DATED 29.1.2009 OF LD. CIT(A) XXII, NEW DELHI. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 8,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UN-EXPL AINED INCOME, UNDER SECTION 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY NOT APPRECIAT ING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMIN E THE OTHER DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) I N PROOF OF SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 8,00,000/- AND IF THE SAME WAS EVER PAID TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE BUILDER M/S. RADHA RAMAN BUILDERS AND DEVELO PERS PVT. LTD. 2) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 1,46,577/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UN-EXPL AINED INCOME, UNDER SECTION 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 1,46,5 77/- AS HIS RETURNED INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION, AND THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE OTHER DOCUMENT S FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (APPEAL) ITA NO.5221/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 ITO VS. SANJAY BAJAJ PAGE 2 3) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ALL OR ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND AMEND, ALTER OR ADD ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. H OWEVER, ON A PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE S AID APPEAL CAN BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF TAX EFFECT INVOLVED. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. IT IS SEEN THAT TAX EFFECT IN REVENUES APPEAL IS L ESS THAN RS.10,00,000/- . THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL IS COVERED BY INSTRUCTION NO. 21/2015 D ATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 OF CBDT, ISSUED VIDE F.NO. 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ (PT.) . F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AFORESAID CBDT CIRCULAR IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: .. 3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/ SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS 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 MONETARY LIMIT S PRESCRIBED ABOVE. FILING OF APPEAL IN SUCH CASES IS TO BE DECI DED 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 ITA NO.5221/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 ITO VS. SANJAY BAJAJ PAGE 3 PARA 3 ABOVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN/ NOT PRESSED. APPEALS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTI ONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. 4. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AFORESAID CBDT INSTR UCTION NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 IS APPLICABLE FOR THE PENDING APPEAL S FILED BY REVENUE, AS WELL AS FOR THE APPEALS TO BE FILED BY REVENUE HENCEFORTH. IN V IEW OF THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTION, THEREFORE, REVENUE SHOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN / NOT PRE SSED THE PRESENT APPEAL, SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE P RESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS. 10,00,000/- , SPECIFIED IN THE AFORESAID CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 21/ 2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015. 5. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE A PPEAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AFORESAID CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015; AND HOLD THAT THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, NOT MAINTAINABLE. ACCORDINGL Y, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL IN LIMINE, APPEAL BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE; WITHOUT GOING INTO T HE MERITS. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL, FILED BY REVENUE; STANDS DISMISSED. THIS WAS PRONOU NCED ORALLY IN THE OPEN COURT IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING. THIS WRITT EN ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24/04/2017. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU ) ( ANADI N. MISHRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 24 TH APRIL, 2017 *VEENA* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. PRINCIPAL CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO.5221/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 ITO VS. SANJAY BAJAJ PAGE 4