DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. ALOM EXTRUSION LIMITED, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1424/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 February 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee. The appeals were dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect, making them not maintainable as per CBDT circular. The cross-objection became infructuous as a result of the appeals being dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the orders of the CIT(A) deleting additions made for unexplained cash credit for unsecured loans and bogus speculative loss for AY 2016-17 and AY 2011-12 respectively. The assessee filed a cross-objection arguing that the reopening was bad in law. A key factor considered was the tax effect of the reliefs granted, which were below the threshold specified by CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable considering the tax effect, and if the cross-objection filed by the assessee is valid in light of the original addition grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: CA &
For Respondent: CA &

order : February 19th, 2025 These appeals by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 and AY 2011-12, respectively. 2. The Revenue is in appeal raising the following grounds of appeal: I.

1.

AY 2016-17: “1. That in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 68 on account of unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit without appreciating the material brought on record and facts evaluated by the Assessing Officer.

2. That in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of the interest amounting to Rs. 24,02,459/- on such unsecured loan.

3.

That on the judgments of the case law as cited by the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be accepted as it is not squarely applicable to the grounds of appeal

filed by the assessee.

4. That the Department craves leave to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and I or adduce additional evidence at any time during the appeal proceedings.” II.

AY 2011-12: “1. That in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 68 on account of bogus speculative loss on commodities amounting to Rs. 30,53,735/- as unexplained cash credit without appreciating the material brought on record and facts evaluated by the Assessing Officer.

2.

That on the judgments of the case law as cited by the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be accepted as it is not squarely applicable to the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee.

4.

On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we dismiss this appeal of the Revenue on account of low tax effect. However, in case on re-verification of the facts at the end of the Ld. Assessing Officer, it emerges that the tax effect is more than the limit for filing the appeal or the cases fall under any of the exceptions provided in the instruction, then the Revenue will be at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall of this order and revival of the appeals. Such an application should be filed within the time limit provided in the Act.

5.

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed as the appeals are not maintainable on account of tax effect and the cross objection becomes infructuous.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →