DCIT, New Delhi V. Dr. Sangeeta Chauhan, Noida

ITSSA 14/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3249 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 14/DEL/2013 BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1995 TO 19.03.2002 DCIT, CC-11, VS. DR. SANGEETA CHAUHAN, R.NO. 364, ARA CENTRE C-1, SECTOR-12, NOIDA JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI (PAN: ABGPL2318E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR) ASSESSEE BY : MS. ANANYA KAPOOR, A DV. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL WHICH IS EMAN ATE FROM THE ORDER DATED 28.2.2013 OF LD. CIT(A)-XXXI, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1995 TO 19.3.2002. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPE AL READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW A ND FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF MADE BY AO FOR RS. 10,20,0 00/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ON 14.7.201 1 WAS BARRED BY THE LIMITATION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTION 158BE HAS CHANGED W.E.F. 1 .6.2002. 4.. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD, AMEND ANY / ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPE AL. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS STATED TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS AS FIXED BY THE CBDT. 2 THEREFORE, SHE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE MAY BE DISMISSED ON THIS ACCOUNT. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE AO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. AFTER PERUSING THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES A PPEAL IS BELOW THE LIMIT OF RS. 10 LACS, AS FIXED BY THE CBDT AND, THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMEN TS APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 ISSUED VIDE F.NO. 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ (PT.) BY THE CBDT. FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE, 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 T RIBUNAL 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 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 3 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 25/04/2017. SD/- SD/- ( ANADEE NATH MISSHRA ) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25/04/2017 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4 +