COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGH MODI
[Citation -2007-LL-0122-12]

Citation 2007-LL-0122-12
Appellant Name COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Respondent Name RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGH MODI
Court ITAT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 22/01/2007
Assessment Year 1991-92 , 1996-97
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags additional demand • original return • tax effect
Bot Summary: The above appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the judgment d t. 18th July, 2006, passed in ITA Nos. For convenience, facts have been taken from IT Appeal No. 17 of 2006. The CIT(A), on appeals being filed, set aside the penalty and allowed the appeals. Against the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. It is not a case where the appeals of the Department have been jettisoned mainly on account of the fact that because of the circular issued by CBDT subsequently, the appeals were also not maintainable where the tax effect was less than Rs. 2,00,000 lacs. Learned counsel submits that in view of the fact that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the circular of the CBDT restraining filing of the appeals where tax effect is less than Rs. 2,00,000, the appeals give rise to the question of law to the effect that whether on the basis of such circular the Tribunal could have dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, much less the appeal filed prior to the circular when the instructions were different. Since we find that despite the said position stated by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has decided the cases on merits, it is not a case where the question with regard to the CBDT circular survives in these appeals.


above appeals have been filed by Revenue against judgment d t . 18th July, 2006, passed in ITA Nos. 188, 189, 190, 191, 192 and 193/Ind/2004 for asst. yrs. 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. For convenience, facts have been taken from IT Appeal No. 17 of 2006. issue raised by Revenue is with regard to deletion of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act. It is alleged that assessee concealed particulars of reimbursement of expenses made to him by his employer in return filed by assessee. Accordingly, additional demand was raised which was satisfied by assessee in order to buy peace. However, AO levied penalty of Rs. 62,000 for asst. yr. 1991-92, Rs. 24,000 for asst. yr. 1992-93, Rs. 38,000 for asst. yr. 1993-94, Rs. 1,33,000 for asst. yr. 1994-95, Rs. 70,000 for asst. yr. 1995-96, and Rs. 54,000 for asst. yr. 1996-97. CIT(A), on appeals being filed, set aside penalty and allowed appeals. Against order of CIT(A), Revenue filed appeal before Tribunal. Tribunal was of view that circular of CBDT applied to case and on that score appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, despite above view, Tribunal considered cases on merits. In para 5 of its order, it observed as under: "5. Even on merits, Revenue has no case because assessee bona fidely filed original return of income on basis of Form No. 16 issued by employer. AO has also not recorded his satisfaction in assessment order in initiating penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act, which is necessary ingredient for initiating penalty under s. 271(1)(c). We are fortified in our view by decision of Delhi High Court in following cases: CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321: (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del) CIT vs. Auto Lamps Ltd. (2005) 196 CTR (Del) 459: (2005) 278 ITR 32 (Del) CIT vs. B.R. Sharma (2005) 196 CTR (Del) 454: (2005) 275 ITR 303 (Del)." It is, therefore, not case where appeals of Department have been jettisoned mainly on account of fact that because of circular issued by CBDT subsequently, appeals were also not maintainable where tax effect was less than Rs. 2,00,000 lacs. Learned counsel submits that in view of fact that Tribunal has taken into consideration circular of CBDT restraining filing of appeals where tax effect is less than Rs. 2,00,000, appeals give rise to question of law to effect that whether on basis of such circular Tribunal could have dismissed appeal of Revenue, much less appeal filed prior to circular when instructions were different. Since we find that despite said position stated by Tribunal, Tribunal has decided cases on merits, it is not case where question with regard to CBDT circular survives in these appeals. merits have been discussed on facts which do not give rise to any question of law. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed summarily. This order be retained in IT Appeal No. 15 of 2007 and copy each be placed in record of connected appeals. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGH MODI
Report Error