DCIT, Ajmer V. RAMESH CHAND BANSAL, BEAWAR

ITA 546/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5362 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA SINGH CIT DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Tax effect

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] Y S[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH Y ADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO.546/JP/15 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE DCIT, CENTRAL, AJMER CUKE VS. SHRI RAMESH CHAND BANSAL PROP.R.C. BANSAL & COMPANY, SURAJPOLE GATE, BEAWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ACMPB 6056 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE ATTENDED JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :S HRI RAJENDRA SINGH (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 29.03.2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 /03/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI LALIET KUMAR J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, UDAIPUR DATED 30.03.2015 WHEREIN THE REVE NUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A), UDAIPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,45,255/- MADE ON A/C OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT/EX PENDITURE AS PER PAGE NO.1 OF ANNEXURE-A IMPOUNDED DURING SEA RCH. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A), UDAIPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,38,698/- MADE ON THE BASIS OF PAGE-1 OF ANNEXURE- A-6 IMPOUNDED DURING SEARCH. ITA NO. 546/JP/15 DCIT, CENTRAL, AJMER VS. SHRI RAMESH CHAND BANSAL, BEAWAR. 2 (3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A), UDAIPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,40,000/- MADE ON A/C OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT/E XPENDITURE AS PER PAGE NO.10 & 11 OF ANNEXURE-A-6 IMPOUNDED DU RING SEARCH. (4) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A), UDAIPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,77,122/-/- MADE ON A/C OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT/ EXPENDITURE AS PER PAGE NO.48 & 75 OF ANNEXURE-A-6 IMPOUNDED FR OM M/S M. BANSAL & COMPANY DURING SEARCH. (5) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A), UDAIPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 73,052/- MADE ON A/C OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT/EXPE NDITURE AS PER PAGE NO. 95 OF ANNEXURE-A-6 IMPOUNDED FROM M/S M. BANSAL & COMPANY DURING SEARCH. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBJECT AP PEAL OF REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN LIGHT OF CIRCULAR NO . 21 DATED 10.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE CBDT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LD AR AND THE DR. FROM PERUSAL OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE APPEAL , IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE DEMAND/ TAX EFFECT IN THIS REVENUE APPEAL IS NOT EXCEEDING RS. 10 LACS. UNDER THE POWERS VESTED BY SEC. 268A(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, CBDT HAS RECENTLY ISSUED CIRCULAR NO.21 OF 2015 DAT ED 10.12.2015(F.NO.279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ(PT) INSTRUCT ING THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL SHOULD N OT BE FILED BEFORE ITAT WHERE THE DEMAND/TAX EFFECT DOES NOT ITA NO. 546/JP/15 DCIT, CENTRAL, AJMER VS. SHRI RAMESH CHAND BANSAL, BEAWAR. 3 EXCEED RS.10 LACS. THE CIRCULAR SPECIFICALLY MENTI ONS THAT IT WILL BE APPLICABLE TO ALL PENDING APPEALS ALSO. 3.1. SUBJECT TO SOME EXCEPTIONS, IT IS FURTHER DIR ECTED BY CBDT THAT ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS PENDING BEFORE ITAT WH ERE THE DEMAND/TAX EFFECT IS NOT EXCEEDING RS. 10 LACS SHOU LD BE EITHER WITHDRAWN OR NOT PRESSED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVES AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3.2 THE REVENUE APPEAL IS NOT COVERED BY ANY EXCE PTIONS MENTIONED IN THE SAID CBDT CIRCULAR. SINCE THE TAX DEMAND IN DISPUTE IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL DOES NOT EXCEED THE LIMI T OF RS. 10 LACS AS SET OUT BY CBDT, SUCH APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. DR AGREE THAT THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT MAY BE TREATED AS NOT PRESSED/WITHDRAWN AND DISMISSED IN VIEW OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 /0 3/2016. SD/- SD/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (LALIET KUMAR) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL; / JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 546/JP/15 DCIT, CENTRAL, AJMER VS. SHRI RAMESH CHAND BANSAL, BEAWAR. 4 JAIPUR DATED:- 29/ 03 /2016 PILLAI VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- THE DCIT, CENTRAL, AJMER 2. THE RESPONDENT- SHRI RAMESH CHAND BANSAL, BEAWA R 3. THE CIT(A) 2, UDAIPUR 4. THE CIT, AJMER 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO.646 /JP/15) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR `