9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 167 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of capital introduction - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Prescribed monetary limits for filing of appeal before ITAT - Whether, this appeal of revenue, which is below the prescribed limit of tax effect in view of the Board s Instruction No.5/2014 issued on 10.07.2014 revising the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before ITAT is maintainable or not? - Held that - On query from the Bench, the Ld. DR could not point out any of the exceptions as provided in the Circular as that this is a loss case having tax effect more than the prescribed limit, which should be taken into account,or that this is a composite order for many assessment years where tax effect will be more than the prescribed limit as per para 5 of above instructions, or that this is a case, where, in the case of revenue, where constitutional validity of the provision of the Act or I.T. Rules 1962 are under challenge,or that Board s order, Notification, Instruction or Circular has been held to be illegal or ultra vires, or that Revenue Audit Objection in the case has been accepted by the Department and the same is under challenge. The Ld. DR could not point out any of the exceptions as provided above. Accordingly, this being a low tax effect case, the appeal of the revenue dismissed in limine without going into merits. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Assessee's appeal against additions and disallowances. 2. Revenue's appeal regarding deletion of addition on account of capital introduction. Issue 1: Assessee's Appeal Against Additions and Disallowances The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, Kolkata, dated 24.10.2011, for the assessment year 2004-05. The grounds of appeal included the following: - The additions and disallowances were claimed to be perverse, against the evidence and material on record, and unsupported by any material or evidence. - The addition of Rs. 9,25,000/- gifted by the father-in-law of the appellant was argued to be devoid of logic and based on surmises, suspicion, and conjectures. The case was fixed for hearing on 14.05.2015, but neither the assessee nor any representative appeared. The Tribunal noted that "the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights," invoking the principle of "vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt." Considering the facts and Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules, along with precedents from CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. and the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. C.W.T., the Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed due to non-prosecution. Issue 2: Revenue's Appeal Regarding Deletion of Addition on Account of Capital Introduction The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, Kolkata, dated 24.10.2011, for the assessment year 2004-05. The primary ground of appeal was that the CIT(A) erred in law and fact by deleting the addition of Rs. 11,82,263/- on account of capital introduction. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in this appeal was below the prescribed monetary limits for filing appeals before ITAT, as per the recent Instruction No. 5/2014 issued by CBDT on 10.07.2014, which set the tax effect limit at Rs. 4 lakhs. The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. M/s. P. S. Jain & Co., which emphasized that monetary limits for filing appeals should be considered even for old cases to reduce the burden on the Department and the courts. The Tribunal also cited the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Sureshchandra Durgaprasad Khatod (HUF), which held that revised monetary limits apply to pending cases. The Tribunal reiterated that the main objective of such instructions is to reduce pending litigation where the tax effect is minimal. The Tribunal found no exception to the monetary limit rule in this case and dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine without going into the merits, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. Conclusion In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed due to non-prosecution, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits.
|
