ACIT, Ghaziabad v. M/s Lajree Spinning & Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AND AND AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI K.G. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI K.G. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI K.G. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5326/DEL/2010 ITA NO. 5326/DEL/2010 ITA NO. 5326/DEL/2010 ITA NO. 5326/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003- -- -04 0404 04 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER VS. M/S LAJREE SPINNING & WEA VING OF INCOME TAX MILLS PVT. LTD. (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 204 SEWAK CHAMBER GHAZIABAD. 2099/38 NAIWALA KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI. PAN NO. AAACL0032C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.K. MONGA DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI TARUN ADVOCATE ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL J.M. PER I.P. BANSAL J.M. PER I.P. BANSAL J.M. PER I.P. BANSAL J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. IT IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DATED 30 TH AUGUST 2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY L EARNED AR THAT THE TOTAL TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT CASE AS PER PAG E OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER IS ONLY A SUM OF ` 52 831/-. THUS IT WAS PL EADED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS VERY MUCH LOW AND THE DEPARTMENT COULD NO T HAVE FILED THE APPEAL 3. ACCORDING TO THE C.B.D.T. INSTRUCTIONS NO. 2 DAT ED 24.10.2005 THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. FOR THIS PURPOSE RELIANCE MAY BE PLACED ON THE DECI SION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN CASE OF SHRI VIKRAM BHATNAGAR ITA NO. 60/D /2002 ORDER DATED 10-3-2006. 4. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT RECENTLY THE HONBLE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 1.8.2007 IN ITA NO. 68 3/2007 IN THE CASE ITA NO. 5326/D/10 2 OF CIT V. MANISH BHAMBRI HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF T RIBUNAL VIDE WHICH THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS REFUSED T O BE ENTERTAINED BECAUSE OF LOW TAX EFFECT. THE SAID ORDER OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONV ENIENCE:- THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER DATED 8TH AUG UST 2006 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D ELHI BENCH 'D' IN IT(SS) NO. 513/DEL/2003 RELEVANT FOR T HE BLOCK PERIOD 1ST APRIL 1990 TO 14TH FEBRUARY 2001. THE QUESTION THAT AROSE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE AMOUNTS WERE NOT EXPLAINED TAX WAS LEVIED. IN APPEAL THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE VIEW CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HEL D THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY HIM WAS ACCEPTABLE AN D IN ANY CASE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO RECOLL ECT EACH AND EVERY ENTRY MADE IN THE BANK. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE IS RS.30 000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AND RS.83 000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002. IT M AY ALSO BE MENTIONED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED TH E EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO A GIFTOFRS.60 000/-. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TA X APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT IN VIEW OF INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CBDT WHERE THE TAX EFFEC T IS LESS THAN RS.L LAC THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE TAX E FFECT IS LESS THAN RS.L LAC. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE TR IBUNAL DID NOT ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL. THE REVENUE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF T HE ITA NO. 5326/D/10 3 TRIBUNAL HAS COME UP BEFORE US UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. IT IS CONTENDED BY LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS A FACT FINDING AUTHORITY AND SHOULD HAVE ADJUDICATED THE MATTER ON MERITS. W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT AT ALL SUBSTANTIAL AND THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE IS QUITE INSIGNIFICANT CONSIDERING THAT THE CASE IS ONE OF A BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE INCOM E TAX DEPARTMENT TO GO ON BURDENING THE TRIBUNAL THE COU RT WITH EVERY CASE RIGHT UP TO THE END. APART FROM BUR DENING THE TRIBUNAL AND COURTS IT ALSO CAUSES AVOIDABLE E XPENSES TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY FOR LEGAL FEES AND MERELY BECAU SE THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT HAS GOT UNLIMITED RESOURCES THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION THAT EVERY CASE SHOULD BE DRAGGED ON. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL BECAUSE OF THE INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THE MATTER. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. WE THEREFORE DISMISS THIS APPEAL. 5. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED BEING UN-ADMITTED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX E FFECT. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.02.2 011 SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) (K.G. BANSAL) (K.G. BANSAL) (K.G. BANSAL) (I.P. BANSAL) (I.P. BANSAL) (I.P. BANSAL) (I.P. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11.02.2011. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR