DCIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Balvinder Sachdeva, New Delhi

ITA 532/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7092 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 532/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DCIT, CIRCLE 32(1) VS. SH. BALVINDER SACHDEVA, ROOM NO. 1502, BLOCK E-2, D-72, LAJPAT NAGAR-I, 15 TH FLOOR, SHYAMA PRASAD NEW DELHI 24 MUKHERJEE, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI (PAN: ARMPS9248P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND CROSS OBJECTION NO. 52/DEL/2013 (IN ITA NO. 532/DEL/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SH. BALVINDER SACHDEVA, VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 32(1) D-72, LAJPAT NAGAR-I, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 24 (PAN: ARMPS9248P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. K.K. JAISWAL, DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 19-01-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 03-02-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THE APPEAL AND ASSESSEE H AS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION WHICH IS EMANATE FROM THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2012 OF LD. CIT(A)-XVII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS . 15,36,669/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT S UBMIT SUPPORTING BILLS/ ITA NO. 532/DEL/2013 & CO NO. 52/DEL/2013 2 VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF THESE EXPENSES EITHER AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE OR AT THE REMAND STAGE. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY / ALL OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF TH E 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 DISPUTE, NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR A DJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSU E INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SER VED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE ARE DECIDING THE PRESE NT APPEAL EXPARTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 3. WE FIND THAT REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 15,36,6 69/- VIDE GROUND NO. 1, AS AFORESAID. 4. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL 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. 142/200 7- ITJ (PT.) BY THE CBDT. 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 LIMITS GIVEN HE REUNDER: S NO A PPEALS 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 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 ITA NO. 532/DEL/2013 & CO NO. 52/DEL/2013 3 GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OPERA TIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. 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. ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION 7. AS FAR AS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS CONCERNE D, THE SAME IS ONLY SUPPORTIVE THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER. SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APP EAL OF THE REVENUE AS AFORESAID, HENCE, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HA S BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND DISMISSED AS SUCH. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/02/2016. SD/- SD/- (L.P. SAHU) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 03/2/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR