DCIT, Cir 28(1), V. Shailendra Kumar,

ITSSA 25/DEL/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1886 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIMA BARNWAL SENIOR
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A.NO.25/DEL./2007 (BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1990 TO 20.08.2000) DCIT, CIRCLE 28 (1), VS. SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR JAIN , NEW DELHI. PROP. M/S. NAVEEN MILLS STORE, 3381/7, GALI HAKIM BAKA, BAZAR HAUZ QAZI, DELHI 110 006. (PAN : AADPJ3498C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. ANIMA BARNWAL, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 25.05.2016 DATE OF ORDER : 25.05.2016 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, DCIT, CIRCLE 28 (1), NEW DELHI (HEREINAF TER REFERRED TO AS THE REVENUE), BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.11.2006 PASSED BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XXV, NEW DELHI QUA THE BLOCK P ERIOD 01.04.1990 TO 20.09.2000 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOU NTING TO RS.11,73,225/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENT RY PROVIDED BY M/S. BEMCO JEWELLERS IN WHOSE CASE IT W AS ITA NO.2147/DEL./2012 2 CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THIS FIRM HAS NOT DONE ANY PURCHASE AND SALE OF JEWELLERY BUT ISSUED CHEQUES IN LIEU OF CASH GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE APPARENTLY SHOW THAT THE SAME IS HAVING LOW TAX EFFECT AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 VIDE WHICH THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DIRECTED NOT TO PREFER ANY APPEAL IN CASE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/- AND THIS FACTUAL POSITION HAS BEEN F AIRLY CONCEDED BY THE LD. D.R. THE LD. A.R. CONTENDED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED IN THE LIGHT OF CBDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA). 3. WE HAVE HEARD PARTIES ON THE ISSUE IN CONTROVER SY AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. PERUSAL OF CBDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA ) SHOWS THAT MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTM ENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT HAS BEEN REVISED AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AFORESAID C IRCULAR 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.) 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 ITA NO.2147/DEL./2012 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.' 4. THE CONTENTION OF LD. SR. D.R. THAT SHE NEEDS S OME TIME TO PROCURE THE REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO WO RK OUT THE TAX EFFECT, IS NOT TENABLE BECAUSE WHEN APPARENTLY, THE APPEAL IN QUESTION IS COVERED UNDER CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015 (SUPRA), THE REVENUE CANNOT IMPORT THE FACTS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FURTHER PROLONG THE MATTER . HOWEVER, IN CASE ANY FACT WHICH IS OTHERWISE NOT ON RECORD, WARRANTS THE RESTORATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE REVENUE IS AT LIBERTY TO APPROA CH THE TRIBUNAL UNDER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW. 5. IN VIEW OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21 DATED 10.12. 2015 HAVING RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AB OVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AFORESAID APPEAL IS NOT MA INTAINABLE BECAUSE OF LOW TAX EFFECT I.E. LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/- HENCE, THE AFORESAID APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED HAVING BEE N BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 25 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016 TS ITA NO.2147/DEL./2012 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT-XXV, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.