Facts :
While assessing the total income of the assessee, an individual, the Assessing Officer (AO) held that the assessee had not properly explained the source of cash deposits. He, accordingly, made certain additions on account of cash deposits.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to CIT(A) who allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The tax effect of the appeal filed was less than Rs. 4,00,000. The appeal was filed on 15.5.2013. Vide CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2014 the threshold limit for filing appeal to Tribunal was fixed at Rs. 4,00,000. The Bench noticed that the Revenue ought not to have filed the appeal since the tax effect was less than Rs. 4,00,000. The DR argued that the appeal was filed before issuance of Instruction No. 5 of 2014, and therefore, the said instruction is not applicable to the present case.
Held:
The Tribunal noted that section 268A has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1999. It also noticed that CBDT has vide Instruction No. 5 of 2014 fixed the threshold of tax effect for filing appeal by the Revenue to the Tribunal to be Rs. 4,00,000. Accordingly, it held that the circular is applicable for pending cases also and therefore, the Revenue should not have filed the appeal before the Tribunal. It fortified its decision by the following decisions of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court:
1 CIT vs. Oscar Laboratories P. Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 115 (P & H)
2 CIT vs. Abinash Gupta (2010) 327 ITR 619 (P & H)
3 CIT vs. Varindera Construction Co. (2011) 331 ITR 449 (P & H)(FB)
It also noted that the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Delhi Race Club Ltd. in ITA No. 128/2008, order dated 3.3.2011 has following its earlier order dated 2.8.2010 in ITA No. 179/1991 in the case of CIT Delhi-III vs. M/s P.S.Jain & Co. held that such circular would also be applicable to pending cases.
The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.