DCIT CC 8 3 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AAKASH ASHISH REALTORS LIMITED, MUMBAI

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in accepting the transactions as genuine merely on the basis of documentary evidences, without appreciating that in cases involving accommodation entry providers, mere furnishing 1 of documents cannot override surrounding circumstances and incriminating material relied upon by the Assessing Officer.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the 1.d. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition solely on the ground that the amounts were subsequently repaid, whereas repayment does not absolve the assessee from explaining the source of the credits at the time of receipt, as required under section 68 of the Act.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the L.d. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring material facts such as non- compliance or inadequate compliance of notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act and the failure of the assessee to produce the creditor parties for verification, which clearly cast doubt on the genuineness of the transactions.

The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed return of income for the AY 2013-14, declaring total income of Rs.Nil/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and after confronting the assessee, the AO passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, by making addition of Rs.1,33,00,000/- towards unsecured loan from M/s Pingle Supplier Pvt. Ltd. u/s 68 of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A), in the appellate order u/s 250 of the Act dated 30.12.2025, deleted the above addition and allowed the grounds of appeal. In the said order, the CIT(A) observed that the amount was repaid by the assessee and the appellant adduced evidences to establish identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) has also placed reliance on the following decisions while granting relief to the assessee: (i) ITO 41(3)(1) vs. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad N Rungta in ITA No.1574/Mum/2024 dated 22.01.2025, (ii) CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji, 42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj.), (iii) Pr. CIT vs. M/s Skylark Build in ITA 2 No.616 of 2016 (Bom.) and (iv) CIT vs. Mahaveer Crimpers, 95 taxmann.com 323 (Guj.) 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the tax effect in the instant appeal is below the monetary limits for filing departmental appeal before various judicial fora including the ITAT. As per CBDT Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 the monetary limit of filing appeal before ITAT is Rs.60,00,000/- However in the present case the tax effect is only Rs.41,09,700/-, though in Form No.36 the revenue has stated that the tax effect at Rs.43,15,185/-. Both these amounts are below the limit prescribed by the CBDT. Hence, the appeal is not liable to be admitted. 4.1 The Ld. AR also submitted that the appeal filed by the revenue is liable to be dismissed because the CIT(A) has passed a detailed order on merit after calling for the remand report. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of AO. He submitted that the appeal is covered under the exception 3.1 (h) provided in the Circular of CBDT. 6. We have heard both sides and perused the materials on record. We have also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR. We have also gone through the CBDT Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. On the issue of tax effect being lower than the limit prescribed in the CBDT Circular, we find that the CBDT, in Circular No.5/2024 (supra) has provided exception under clause (h) of para 3.1, which reads as follows: “h. cases involving organized tax evasion including cases of bogus capital gain/loss through penny stocks and cases of accommodation entries”. It is clear from the Circular that only cases involving organized tax evasion are coming under the exception provided by the CBDT Circular. In the present case, the assessee has taken unsecured loan from M/s Pingle Supplier Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. Sr. DR has not been able to substantiate as to how M/s Pingle Supplier Pvt. Ltd. was involved in organized tax evasion. Therefore, the monetary limit of Rs.60,00,000/- for filing appeal before the ITAT is applicable in the instant appeal. Since the tax effect of Rs.43,15,185/- is less than the threshold amount of Rs.60,00,000/- prescribed by the CBDT, the present appeal is not liable to be entertained. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 6.1 Be that as it may, the CIT(A) has also passed a detailed and speaking order after discussing the facts of the case, remand report of the AO and the precedents