DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. QMAX SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4379/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2021AY 2009-102 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 held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Revenue could not demonstrate any exceptions to the CBDT circular.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made towards unexplained unsecured loans and interest paid on such loans. The tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT due to the tax effect being below the CBDT's prescribed limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal
For Respondent: Ms. Amrita Singh
Hearing: 12.04.2021Pronounced: 03.05.2021

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :-

This appeal by the revenue is directed against order of learned CIT(A) dated 15.3.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

The grounds of appeal

read as under :- 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition made towards unexplained unsecured loan of Rs.66,00,OOO/- u/s.68 of the I.T.Act.

2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition made towards interest claimed to be paid on unexplained unsecured loan of Rs.21,67,461/- u/s.69C of the I.T.Act.

3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee has failed to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of lender parties, invested as share application money in the assessee company."

3.

At the outset it is noted that that the tax effect in this case is below the limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated

2 M/s. Qmax Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.

8.8.2019 for filing appeal before the ITAT. Hence this appeal by the revenue is not maintainable.

4.

Ld DR could not dispute that the tax effect is below the said limit. She could not point out that the appeal falls in any of the exceptions carved in said circular.

5.

Upon careful consideration we find that as the tax effect is below the limit fixed by CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT, this appeal by the revenue is liable to be dismissed in limine. The revenue will have liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect b found to be beyond the above limit.

6.

Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed as such.

Pronounced in the open court on 3.5.2021.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →