ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.20(1), MUMBAI vs. GIRISH SHAMJI CHHEDA, MUMBAI

O R D E R PER BENCH :- These three appeals are filed by the revenue against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 13.03.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year 2020-2021.

3. The appellant prays that the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi on the above grounds be reversed and that of the AO be restored.

4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or submit additional ground which may be necessary.”

A.Y. 2020-21 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting an amount of Rs.25,91,727/- levied u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is liable for penalty as the income determined includes referred to in section 68 as unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs.3,61,16,600/- 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the disallowance u/s.68 as unexplained cash credits of Rs.3,61,16,600/- as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of transactions of unsecured loans. The onus of proving the above is cast upon the assessee.

3. The appellant prays that the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi on the above grounds be reversed and that of the AO be restored.

4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or submit additional ground which may be necessary.”

A.Y. 2020-21 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- levied u/s.271B of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee is liable to get his accounts audited u/s.44AB of the I.T. Act, 1961 as the total turnover of the assessee during the year under consideration exceeded Rs.1 crore and also the fact that the entire interest expenses of Rs.1,47,99,790/- claimed by the assessee under the head 'Income from Other Sources' is treated as assessee’s business income as the direct nexus of the amount taken by the assessee for the investment is proven, treating the same as business expenses.

2. The appellant prays that the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi on the above grounds be reversed and that of the AO be restored.

3658 & 3659/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2020-21 Girish Shamji Chheda 3. At the outset Ld. AR, pointed out that amounts involved in all the three appeals against the penalty order u/s. 270A, 271AAC and 271B are below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT vide circular dated 17.09.2024, and hence these deserve to be dismissed. We have perused the penalty orders and it is seen that penalty imposed in all the three cases is below the threshold monetory limit of Rs. 60 lacs prescribed by the CBDT vide above mentioned circular. In view of above, all the three appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 24.09.2025