Arun Kumar Panigrahi, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 30.4.2013 of Ld.CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi pertaining to the Assessment Year 2008-09 on the following ground.

"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions of Rs.304055/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.5,15,916/- made by the AO on account of unverified setting of current year loss claim, unverified deduction u/s 80C and unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act respectively without allowing a reasonable opportunity to the AO to examine the evidence or documents produced at the stage of appellate proceedings as stipulated in Rule 46 of IT Act, 1961.

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal."

1 ITA No.4130/Del/2013 Sh. Arun Kumar Panigrahi A.Y. 2008-09

2. We have heard Ms.Y.Kakkar, Ld.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue and Shri SC Sannigrahi, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee. On a query from the Bench the Ld.D.R. vehemently contended that the tax effect in the case on hand is more than the limit prescribed by the CBDT at the time of filing of the appeal and that the fresh Circular of the CBDT clearly mentions that the tax effect limit of Rs.4 lakhs is prospective in nature and hence the limits prescribed in the Circular cannot be applied to appeals filed for the earlier Assessment Years i.e. 1999-2000. He contended that the limit applies to appeals filed after the date of the Circular.

3. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the tax effect in the appeals of the Revenue, is below the prescribed limit of Rs.4 lakhs for filing of appeal before the ITAT. The CBDT in its Instruction No. 5/2014, prescribed the revised monetary limit for filing appeal to Tribunal at Rs.4 lacs. It was contended that this revised monetary limits are applicable to pending cases.

4. After hearing rival contentions and perusing the material on record we hold as follows.

5. The Tribunal, in the case of "DCIT vs. Sushila Saraogi (2014) (11) TMI 294" ITAT Kolkata, after considering the precedents on the subject, held that the Instruction no.5/14, issued by the CBDT on 10.7.2014 is applicable to the pending appeals. The Tribunal followed the proposition laid down in the judgements of various High Courts, including the two judgements of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s PS Jain & Co. in ITA 179/1991 dt. 2.8.2010 and in the case of CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd. dt. 3.3.2011.

6. We respectfully follow the Co-Ordinate Bench Order. In the instant case as the tax effect being below Rs. 4 lacs, we without going into the issue on merits, dismiss the appeal of the Revenue in limine as not maintainable. It is to be mentioned that the Ld.DR was unable to point out any exceptional circumstances, mentioned in Board Instruction no.5 of 2014 that have led to

2 ITA No.4130/Del/2013 Sh. Arun Kumar Panigrahi A.Y. 2008-09

filing of this appeal, despite the fact that the monetary limit being below the prescribed limit.

7. In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th June, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: the 30th June, 2015

· Manga

Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY

By Order,

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

3