ACIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Gurvinder Pal Singh, New Delhi

ITA 6463/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4668 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SH ARUN KUMAR YAD AV
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6463/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 ACIT, CIRCLE-49(1), VS. SHRI GURVINDER PAL SIN GH ROOM NO. 1504, 15 TH K-25, FATEH NAGAR, TILAK NAGAR, FLOOR, E-2 BLOCK, NEW DELHI DR. SP MUKHERJEE CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SH. ARUN KUMAR YAD AV, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL WHICH IS EMAN ATE FROM THE ORDER DATED 16.9.2015 OF LD. CIT(A)-17, NEW DELHI PERTAINING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UND ER:- 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY O F RS. 5,39,750/- IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S. 271(1)(C) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FAC T THAT IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS IN RESPCT OF EXPENSES DEBITED BY IT IN THE P&L ACCOUNT FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT ALLOWABLE / ADMISSIBLE EXPENSES UNDER THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THIS IS ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT AU DIT REPORT CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE SUCH EXPENSES WERE UNPAID AND DE SPITE THIS ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF SUCH EXPENSES WHICH WERE NOT ALLOWABLE. SO IT IS TANTAMOUNTING TO CONSCIOUSLY FURNISHING OF WRONG PA RTICULARS OF INCOME AND HENCE LIABLE TO PENALTY. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 5,39,750/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO A CCEPTED THE QUANTUM ADDITION ON THE ISSUE UNDER QUESTION. 2 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IGN ORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY CLAIMED EXPENDITURE DESPITE TH E FACT THAT CONTRADICTORY INFORMATION WAS MENTIONED IN AUDIT REPORT / COMPUTA TION SHEET. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY / ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF AP PEAL. 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. DURING THE HEARING, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. A FTER PERUSING THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS BEL OW THE LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS, AS FIXED BY THE CBDT AND, 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 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 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 3 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. 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 11/09/2017. SD/- SD/- (L.P. SAHU) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11/09/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR