Anand Singh Mann, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

Income-tax Officer, Vs. Mr. Anand Singh Mann, Ward-21(2), 462, Village Prahladpur, Room No.D-3, Vikas Bhawan Delhi- 110042 New Delhi- 110002. (PAN AJNP 8241 M)

(Appellant ) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. D.R. Respondent by: None

ORDER

PER SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JM:

1. The Revenue has assailed the order of the CIT(A) dated 01.12.2011 for

deleting the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.12,55,000/-. The relevant

assessment year is 2008-09.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none was present on behalf of the

assessee-respondent. It was noticed that the tax effect was below the prescribed

monetary limit of Rs.4 lakhs. Instruction No.5/14 dated 10.07.2014 mandates that

the tax effect should be above 4 lakhs in a particular case, when revenue files an

appeal to the ITAT, (unless the case come within the ambit of exception ITA No.849/Del /2012 2

circumstance/situation mentioned in the circular). The recent order of the Delhi

Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri Chetan Prakash Mittal (ITA

No.3323/Del/2010 dated 13.11.2014) had held that Instruction No.5/14 is applicable

to pending cases. The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows:

(Para 5)

"We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Tribunal in the case of Deputy Commr. of Income Tax Vs. Sushila Saraogi (supra) after considering the precedents on the subject held instruction No.5/14 issued by the CBDT on 10.07.2014 is applicable to the pending appeals. The Tribunal followed the dictum laid down the judgments of the various High Courts including the two judgments of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s P.S. Jain & Co. in ITA No.179/1991 dated 2.8.2010 and in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd. dated 3.3.2011. In view of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sushila Saraogi which have elaborately considered the identical issue, we hold that instruction No.5/2014 issued by the CBDT on 10.07.2014 is applicable to the pending appeals. In the instant case, the tax effect being below Rs.4 lacs, without going into the issue on merit, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue in liminee. It is to be mentioned that Ld. DR was unable to point out any exceptional circumstances/situation (mentioned in board instruction No.5/2014) for filing an appeal despite the monetary limit being below the prescribed limit."

3. In view of the coordinate Bench order of the Tribunal (Supra), we hold that

instruction no.5/2014 issued by the CBDT on 10.07.2014 is applicable to the

pending appeals. In the instant case, since the tax effect is below Rs.4 lakhs, without

going into the issue on merit, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue in limine.

Further it is to be mentioned that Ld. DR was unable to point out any exceptional

circumstances/situation (mentioned in board instruction No.5/14) for filing an

appeal, despite the tax effect being below the prescribed limit. ITA No.849/Del /2012 3

4. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in limine.

The decision was pronounced in the open court on 13th January, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (N.K. SAINI) (GEORGE GEORGE K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Dated: 13th January, 2015.

Aks/-

Copy forwarded to 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi