ACIT,CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA vs. MACHINERY AGENCIES INDIA, KOLKATA

PDF

ITA 2212/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 January 2025AY 2016-17Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 2212/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 ACIT, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs. Machinery Agencies India Appellant / (अपीलार्थी) (PAN: AAEFM 7603 D) Respondent / प्रत्यर्थी Date of Hearing / सुनवाई की तिथि 07.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement/ आदेश उद्घोषणा की तिथि 30.01.2025 For the assessee / निर्धारिती की ओर से Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA For the revenue / राजस्व की ओर से Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT Sr. DR ORDE1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income. The AO made additions related to expenses, unsecured loans, and interest on unsecured loans. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, deleting additions related to unsecured loans and interest, but confirming disallowance of expenses.

Held

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions based on a previous order by the ITAT for the same assessee and AY. The revenue's appeal was dismissed both on merits and tax effect, as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions related to unsecured loans and interest, and whether the revenue's appeal is maintainable due to low tax effect.

Sections Cited

143(3), 37, 68, 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

This is the appeal preferred by the revenue against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 09.08.2024 for AY 2016-17.

Assessment Year: 2016-17 Machinery Agencies India 2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in business of trading of natural raw rubber and latex. The assessee filed its return of income by declaring a total income of RS. 43,52,040/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and show cause notice was also issued and thereafter the AO completed the assessment and passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act by making any addition of Rs. 1,06,48,783/- which includes expenses of Rs. 88,591/- u/s 37 of the Act, unsecured loans of Rs. 95,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act and interest paid on unsecured loans of Rs. 10,60,192/- u/s 69C of the Act.

Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been partly allowed as the addition of Rs. 10,50,692/- in respect of addition on unsecured loan and interest paid on the unsecured loan has been directed to be deleted but confirmed the order of AO on the ground of the disallowance made on expenses amounting to Rs. 88,591/- u/s 37 of the Act.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the department has preferred the present appeal.

At the very outset, it has been argued by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the monetary limit of filing of appeal is less than the prescribed limit and it is hit by tax effect.

The Ld. D.R submitted that his case lies under the exceptional clause and according to him, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by deleting the addition of Rs. 95,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan credited u/s 68 of the Act and Rs. 10,60,192/- on account of bogus expenses u/s 69C of the Act by ignoring the facts that the case of the assessee is different from the fact for the AY 2014-15.