Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2749 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 year(s) 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
27-03-2018
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
F
Next Hearing Date
19-07-2017
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
18-10-2013
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5774/DEL./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITO, WARD 2, VS. SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR NAGAR, ROORKEE. GOVERDHANPUR ROAD, LAKSAR. (PAN : AAGPN7066F) ITA NO.5606/DEL./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR NAGAR, VS. ITO, WARD 2, GOVERDHANPUR ROAD, ROORKEE. LAKSAR. (PAN : AAGPN7066F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI ATIQ AHMAD, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 26.03.2018 DATE OF ORDER : 27.03.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : PRESENT CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE REVENUE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF CONSOLIDATE D ORDER TO AVOID REPETITION OF DISCUSSION. ITA NO.5606/DEL./2013 ITA NO.5774/DEL./2013 2 2. THE APPELLANT, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, ROORK EE (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE REVENUE) BY FILIN G THE PRESENT APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 27.08.2013 PASSED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS)-II, DEHRADUN QUA THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON AD HOC BASIS AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS, WHEREAS DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AN D EVEN CASH FLOW CHART WAS NOT PRODUCED. 2. WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.15,69,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITIO N OF RS.23,69,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) BE SET ASIDE A ND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 3. THE APPELLANT, SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR NAGAR (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESEN T APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.08.2013 PASSE D BY LD. CIT(APPEALS)-II, DEHRADUN QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10 ON THE GROUND THAT :- ON FACTS AND UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ING THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS.8,00,000 (RUPEES EIGH T LACS) ON ACCOUNT OF ARBITRARILY PRESUMED EXPENSES O N MARRIAGE OF SON. ITA NO.5606/DEL./2013 ITA NO.5774/DEL./2013 3 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICA TION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCE EDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE IS A CASH DEPO SIT OF RS.23,69,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE HAS TRANSFERRED MONEY FROM AXIS BANK , KARNAL TO AXIS BANK, ROORKEE WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM ROORKEE BRANCH AND HAS ALSO FILED EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF BANK STA TEMENT WITH REGARD TO AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,10,000/- WHICH HAVE BE EN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. HOWEVER, ON FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.26,39,480/-, THE S AME HAS BEEN ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 O F THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) AND MADE ADDITI ON THEREOF TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF FILING APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,69,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.23,69,000/- MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS.8,00,000/- BY PARTLY A LLOWING THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE HAVE COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PR ESENT APPEALS. 6. ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED TO PUT IN APPEARANCE DESPITE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE FOR THE DATE OF HEARING OF 0 1.01.2018 AND ITA NO.5606/DEL./2013 ITA NO.5774/DEL./2013 4 26.03.2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. DR AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E FOR THE REVENUE TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NO.5774/DEL/2013 (REVENUES APPEAL) 8. PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE APPARENTLY SHOW THAT THE SAME IS HAVING LOW TAX EFF ECT AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 VIDE WHICH THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DIRECTED NOT TO PREFER ANY APP EAL IN CASE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/- AND THIS FAC TUAL POSITION HAS BEEN FAIRLY CONCEDED BY THE LD. D.R. 9. PERUSAL OF CBDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA) SHOWS THAT MON ETARY LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS BE EN REVISED AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER:- '3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS GIVE N HEREUNDER: S.NO. APPEALS IN INCOME - TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (RS.) ITA NO.5606/DEL./2013 ITA NO.5774/DEL./2013 5 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/ TRIBUNALS. 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.' 10. IN VIEW OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21 DATED 10.12 .2015 HAVING RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND WHAT HAS BEEN DISCU SSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AFORESAID APPEA L IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BECAUSE OF LOW TAX EFFECT I.E. LESS TH AN RS.10,00,000/- HENCE, THE AFORESAID APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED HAVING BEEN BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ITA NO.5606/DEL/2013 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 11. BARE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) GOES TO PROVE THAT AT EVERY STAGE, THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED WITH EXTENSIVE OPPORTUNIT Y TO EXPLAIN THE CASH CREDIT IN THE BANK. ON PRODUCING SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE AMOUNT OF RS.15,69,000/- HAS B EEN DELETED AND ON HIS FAILURE TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE OF THE REMAI NING AMOUNT OF RS.8,00,000/-, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. ITA NO.5606/DEL./2013 ITA NO.5774/DEL./2013 6 12. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE DEFENCE THAT HE HAS SPENT AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,80,000/- ON THE WEDDING OF HIS SON WHICH FACT HAS NOT BEEN CORROBORATED WITH THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. SO, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.8,00,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.23,69 ,000/- MADE BY THE AO. 13. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, APPEA L BEARING ITA NO.5774/DEL/2013 FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MA INTAINABLE IN VIEW OF CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 (SUPRA) BECAUSE OF LAW TAX EFFECT, SO IT IS HEREBY DISMISSE D. LIKEWISE, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEARING ITA NO.5606/DE L/2013 IS ALSO DISMISSED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RE CORD ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT (A) TO PROVE THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.8,00,000/- IN THE BANK. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018. SD/- SD/- (L.P. SAHU) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 27 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018 TS ITA NO.5606/DEL./2013 ITA NO.5774/DEL./2013 7 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-II, DEHRADUN. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.
Mehul