Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed as such.
Pronounced in the open court on 3.5.2021.