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

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–

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.

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

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Tax Effect involved in the Departmental Appeal is Rs.52,28,913/- which is less than the Rs.60,00,000/- and liable to be withdrawn as per the recent CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024.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.

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

ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडᭅ फाईल / Guard file.