Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 19.03.2025, for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The CIT(A) had deleted an addition of Rs. 29,48,304/- made on account of non-genuine losses. The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred by misinterpreting Supreme Court decisions and failing to properly appreciate the facts regarding the genuineness of the loss.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the revenue's grounds of appeal did not challenge the deletion of additions on merits but raised issues that did not originate from the CIT(A)'s order. Furthermore, the tax effect in this case, Rs. 9,11,026/-, was below the CBDT's prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition for non-genuine losses and misinterpreting Supreme Court decisions. Whether the revenue's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect is below the CBDT's monetary limit for filing appeals.
Sections Cited
68, 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
(नििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year : 2016-2017) ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata Vs M/s Sonu Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 71/3, Kankurgachi, Kolkata-700054 PAN No. :AADCS 5515 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Ms. Vidhi Ladia, AR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 01.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 19.03.2025, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074708973(1) for the Assessment Year 2016-2017.
Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue and Ms. Vidhi Ladia, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee.
In the revenue's appeal the revenue has raised the following grounds:-
1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 29.48,304/- on account of non-genuine losses.
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deciding the case in favour of the assessee by misinterpreting the relevant terms of the decisions Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of UOI vs. Ashish Agarwalla (2022 SCC Online SC 543) and UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (dated 03.10.2024) [Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024].
2 ITANo.923/KOL/2025 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in falling to appreciate the facts in proper perspective in light of genuineness of loss while concluding in favour of the assessee.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon ble ITAT has erred 171 deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 68, which were based on the probability of surrounding circumstances wherein the transactions were blatantly suspicious and the rules of suspicious transactions apply, as has been held in the case of Hersh W. Chadha v. Deputy Director of Income-tax, Circle-1(1), International Taxation[ 2011] 9 taxmann.com 1 (Delhi)/[2011] 43 SOT 544 (Delhi)/[2011] 135 TTJ 513 (Delhi).
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in not appreciating the judicial principles laid down in the matter of Pr. CIT Vs. Swati Bajaj reported in [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 (Cal)/446 ITR 56 (Cal) wherein the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta laid down guidelines on the manner in which the allegation against the assessee has to be considered.
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case. and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the judicial principles laid down in the matter of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and also in the matter of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 1973 CTR (SC) 500: [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC).
The appellant prays that the tax effect in the instant case is 9,11,026/- which is below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. However, it is humbly prayed that the case falls within the exception clause 3.1(h) of Circular No.05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 as a modus operandi of evasion is involved in the case, meaning thereby that large amounts of money have been brought to the books /system of the assessee company in highly suspicious circumstances.
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not remanding the matter back to the AO for fresh verification. Thus, the provisions of Rule 46A of the 1.T. Rules are violated.
That the appellant craves leave to add to and/or alter. amend, modify or rescind the grounds hereinabove before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.
4. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld.CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that in view of the