ITO WARD 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MANGLAM PACK PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The grounds raised in the appeal read as under:-

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act on account of accommodation entries taken by the assessee and commission of Rs. 54,000/- paid on it, even though the assessee has failed to establish by cogent and reliable evidence of the identity of the investors, the creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transactions whereas jurisdictional High Court has decided the case of NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. on the same issue in favour of Revenue.

In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post, in spite of the same, assessee, nor its authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, I am deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.

Perusal of the aforesaid appeal filed by the Revenue apparently show that the same is having low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019 vide which the Revenue has been directed not to prefer any appeal in case the tax effect is less than Rs.50,00,000/- and this factual position has been fairly conceded by the Ld. D.R.

I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on records. Perusal of CBDT Circular (supra) shows that monetary limit for filing the appeal by the Department before the Tribunal, Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court has been revised. In view of the 8th CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated August, 2019 having retrospective effect as coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Dinesh Madhavlal Patel [TS-469-ITAT-2019(Ahd)] 2019- TIOL-1556-ITAT-AHM dated 14th August, 2019 has already decided the issue as to the applicability of the captioned circular to 2 the pending appeals in affirmative and what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that the aforesaid appeal is not maintainable because of low tax effect i.e. less than Rs.50,00,000/- hence, the aforesaid appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed having been become infructuous. However, in case, the present appeal is found to be maintainable at any stage for any technical reasons, the Department shall be at liberty to seek recall of this order under relevant provisions of law.

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed