Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Kumar Rastogi Prop., Moradabad vs Department Of Income Tax on 1 May, 2009
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH ' A', NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT
&
SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 3334/Del/2009
Assessment Years: 2005-06
DCIT, Vs. Anil Kumar Rastogi,
Range-II, Prop. Cutlery,
Moradabad. Moradabad.
PAN No. AAAFF4673J
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Ms Pratima Kaushik, Sr. DR
Respondent by : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv.
ORDER
PER I.P. BANSAL, J.M.
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. It is directed against the order of the CIT (A) dated 1st May, 2009 for Assessment Year 2005-06. At the time of hearing it was brought to our notice by Ld. AR that tax effect in this case is Rs.99,705/- which is much below Rs. 2 lacs. He has submitted the tax calculation, a copy of which was also given to Ld. DR. According to the C.B.D.T. Instructions No. 2 dated 24.10.2005, the department should not have filed the appeal before the Tribunal. For this purpose reliance may be placed on the decision ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Shri Vikram Bhatnagar ITA No. 60/D/2002, order dated 10-3- 2006.
2. It is also seen that recently the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court vide their order dated 1.8.2007 in ITA No. 683/2007 in the case of CIT v. ITA No. 3334/D/09 2 Manish Bhambri have upheld the order of Tribunal vide which the appeal filed by the revenue was refused to be entertained because of low tax effect. The said order of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is reproduced below for the sake of convenience:-
"The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 8th August, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' in IT(SS) No. 513/Del/2003 relevant for the block period 1st April, 1990 to 14th February, 2001.
The question that arose before the Assessing Officer 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 held that the explanation given by him was acceptable and, in any case, the Assessee cannot be expected to recollect 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 may also be mentioned that for the Assessment Year 1999-2000, the Assessing Officer has already accepted the 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 Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that in view of Instructions issued by the CBDT where the tax effect is less than Rs.l lac, the Department should not file an appeal before the Tribunal. In the present case, the tax effect is less than Rs.l lac. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal did not entertain the appeal.
The Revenue, feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, has come up before us under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is contended by learned counsel for the Revenue that the ITA No. 3334/D/09 3 Tribunal is a fact finding authority and should have adjudicated the matter on merits. We 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 Income Tax Department to go on burdening the Tribunal, the Court with every case right up to the end. Apart from burdening the Tribunal and Courts, it also causes avoidable expenses to the Assessee. It is common knowledge that the Assessee has to pay for legal fees and merely because 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 the 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."
3. In view of above discussion the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed being un-admitted on account of low tax effect.
Order was pronounced in the Open Court on 11.11.2009 (G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA) (I.P. BANSAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 11.11.2009.
dk Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, DEPUTY REGISTRAR