Gaj Raj Singh, Sonepat vs Department Of Income Tax

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 06.01.2012 of Ld.CIT(A), Rohtak pertaining to the Assessment Year 2008-09.

2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under:

"1. Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in giving a relief of Rs.11,05,000/- to the assessee in the absence of any documentary evidence filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings.

2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition without giving any proper reasoning for it in his order dt. 6.1.2012."

3. None was present on behalf of the assessee. We have heard Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue. 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. It contended that the limit applies to appeals filed after the date of the Circular.

1 4. After hearing the Ld.Sr.D.R. and perusing the material on record we hold as follows. 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. We respectfully follow the Co-Ordinate Bench Order. In the instant cases, 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.Sr.DR was unable to point out any exceptional circumstances, mentioned in Board Instruction no.5 of 2014 that have led to filing of this appeal, despite the fact that the monetary limit being below the prescribed limit.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05th May, 2015.

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

Dated: 05th May, 2015

· Manga

2 Copy forwarded to: -

1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY

By Order,

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

3