TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly, we direct the Assessing Officer to carry out the verification exercise and compute the long term capital gain by adopting the cost of acquisition relatable to the acquisition i.e. the cost of land with built up area in financial year 1999-2000 and the additional cost of construction in the financial year 1995-96. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No.727/PN/2013 & ITA No.783/PN/2013 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2015 - Shri G.S. Pannu And MS Sushma chowla JJ. For the Appellant : S.N. Doshi For the Respondent : B.C. Malakar ORDER Per Sushma Chowla, JM: The cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are against the order of CIT(A)-II, Nashik, dated 23.01.2013 relating to assessment year 2008-09 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Both the cross appeals relating to the same assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable since the tax effect was below ₹ 4 lakhs. The learned Authorized Representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons cannot be interpreted as a statute though it is pursuant to the power conferred under Section 268A of the IT Act. What the Court has to consider is the plain language of the para and the object behind the said provisions. The object appears to be not to burden Courts and Tribunals in respect of matters where the tax effect is less than the limit prescribed. Even before this Instruction, CBDT has been issuing instructions, the last one being on 24th Oct., 2005 where the monetary limit has been fixed. In those instructions the only exception had been that in cases involving, substantial question of law of importance as well as in cases where the same question of law will repeatedly arise, either in the case concerned or in similar case, appeal should be filed without being hindered by the monetary limits. The present instructions seem even to limit the issues insofar as the same question of law or recurring issue except to the extent provided in para 5. On a proper reading of para 5 of the instructions it would be clear that a duty is cast on the AO that even if the disputed questions arise for more than one assessment year then an appeal should be filed only in respect of tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of CIT Vs. Smt. Vijaya V. Kavekar (supra), we hold that in view of the revised Instruction issued by the CBDT under which, the monetary limit for filing the appeals before the appellate authorities, Tribunals has been revised and fixed at ₹ 4 lacs i.e. only appeals with tax effect exceeding ₹ 4 lacs were maintainable. In the present appeal filed by the Revenue, the monetary limit admittedly, is less than ₹ 4 lacs. In view of Instruction No.5 of 2014 which are applicable not only to the new appeals to be filed by the Revenue, but also to the appeals pending before the Tribunal, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue because of small tax effect. 10. Now, coming to the appeal filed by the assessee, following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 2,55,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the Long Term Capital Gain at ₹ 1,93,913/- the calculation of which has been made erroneously by adopting the index of F.Y. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the agricultural proceeds received by the assessee from agricultural land. It was also pointed out by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that no agricultural income was shown as the assessee was incurring losses. 16. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the order of CIT(A) and pointed out that in the absence of any documentary evidence, the addition of ₹ 2,55,000/- merits to be upheld. 17. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee during the year under consideration had sold one property at Survey No.111/3/22, Plot No.21, Mauje Wadala Shiwar at Nashik, against which it declared income from long term capital gain. The assessee had received sale consideration in cash which was deposited in her bank account. The plea of the assessee to the extent of ₹ 10 lakhs being attributable to the sale proceeds was accepted by the CIT(A) as the assessee had received the balance sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- by cheque against sale consideration of ₹ 12,55,000/-. The assessee further deposited cash totaling ₹ 2,55,000/- in her bank account, which she claims to be out of her savings and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
