ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. M/S H. S. JEWELS BADAUN PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 380/LKW/2025Status: HeardITAT Lucknow08 October 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President), SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant 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 observed that the total tax effect of the appeal was Rs.49,87,015/-, which is below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs.60,00,000/- for filing appeals. Both parties agreed that the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) concerning AY 2014-15. The appeal was raised on grounds including deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and issues related to loan creditors and incriminating materials found during search.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit set by the CBDT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 132,Section 132(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, CA
For Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:

1.

This appeal, by the Revenue, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Lucknow dated 28.03.2025 pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 in view of the fact that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of the loan creditors and genuineness of transactions.

2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee itself has accepted during the appellate the loan creditors except M/s Kurmi Developers, were non-responsive and no communication could be established even after best efforts, the assessee offered such unsecured loans taken from the entities except M/s Kurmi Developers, treating the same as cessation of liability for assessment year 2020-21 further goes on to establish that the loan creditors were non-existent.

3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that during the course of search proceedings under section 132 of the Act on 21.12.2020, several incriminating materials including digital data were found and seized. Digital data included tally back taken and seized from the premises of the assessee company, which contained therein the group summary of loans for the FY 2018-19.

4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT{A) erred in ignoring the fact that the documents/evidences found during search & seizure Proceedings became the trigger point for post search inquiry proceedings and in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, the director of the assessee company gave evasive reply in respect of unsecured loans.

5. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact the principles which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down in the case of Pr. CIT v. NRA Iron and Steel (P.) Ltd. [2019] 15 SCC 529 when the facts involved in the present case fall within four corners of the same.

6.

Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing.”

2.

At the time of hearing before us, it was observed, on perusal of Form-36 in which the appeal has been filed, that the total tax effect is stated to be Rs.49,87,015/- which is below the prescribed limit of Rs.60,00,000/-, as instructed by Central Board of Direct Taxes, for filing an appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against order of the learned CIT(A). Representatives of both sides, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue and the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee were in agreement that the tax effect being below the minimum prescribed limit of Rs.60,00,000/-, this appeal is not maintainable and should be dismissed.

3.

In view of foregoing and as representatives of both sides are in agreement on this, this appeal is dismissed in limine without admitting the appeal and without going into the merits of the case.

4.

By way of abundant caution, we clarify that Revenue will be at liberty to approach Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for restoration of appeal; if deemed fit, if it is found that the appeal is otherwise maintainable despite the tax effect being below Rs.60,00,000/-.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 08/10/2025.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →