INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SUN GOLD CAPITAL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1938/AHD/2024Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad11 February 2025AY 2016-17Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial 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 noted that the Tax Effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2016-17. The grounds of appeal challenged the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made on account of unexplained cash credits and advances treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tax Effect involved was less than the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No.09/2024.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is to be dismissed due to insufficient Tax Effect as per CBDT Circular No.09/2024, notwithstanding the grounds of appeal?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Garg, AR
For Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.02.2025Pronounced: 11.02.2025

Date of Hearing 11.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 11.02.2025 O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad/National Appeal Centre, Delhi passed for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the proceedings u/s 148 of the IT Act are void ab initio. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in quashing the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961.

Asst.Year –2016-17 - 2– 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the additional Rs 1,32,50,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credits u/s on of the Income tax Act, 1961.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs 25,65,000/ made on account of advance treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961.

4. The Id CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by holding that no cross examination of facts was provided to the assessee, which is contrary.

5.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any the ground before the final hearing of the appeal.

3.

At the outset, it has been observed that as per Form No.36 the Tax Effect involved in the Departmental Appeal is Rs.52,28,913/- which is less than the Rs.60,00,000/- and liable to be withdrawn as per the recent CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The Revenue is at liberty to restore the appeal, in case of any exceptions as mentioned in above Board Circular.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 11.02.2025

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →