ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. APOORVA LEASING FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6239/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 September 2019AY 2012-134 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 due to the low tax effect, as per the prevailing CBDT circulars. The appeal was accordingly dismissed on this technical ground.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an order that deleted an addition of Rs. 95,00,000/- made by the AO under Section 68. The tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the ITAT based on the monetary limit for tax effect set by CBDT circulars. The underlying issue of the addition under Section 68 was not adjudicated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 254(2)

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, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjay Kapoor, Sr. DR

[A]. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 4.10.2016 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, New Delhi [in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. In this appeal, the tax effect is less than the monetary limit fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (in short “CBDT”) in its Circular No.17/2009 dated 08.08.2019. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.

95,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961

ITA No: - 6239/Del/2016 particularly when the assessee has failed to furnish evidence to prove the source of fund the person from whom such huge share capital / premium received.

1.1. Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the issue raised by the AO that the investment of huge sum in this company by those with very meager resources is not probable.

1.2 Ld. CIT(A) ought to have examined the issue from the point of view of “human probability” as the entry through bank account is not a conclusive proof as observed by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (291 ITR 278(SC):-

“the transactions though apparent were held to be not real one.

May be the money came by way of bank cheques and paid through the process of banking transaction but that itself is of no consequences.”

[B]. At the outset, it was brought to the notice by us, at the time of hearing that tax effect in this appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000./-.

Vide recent CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with earlier CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, minimum threshold limit of tax effect of filing of appeals by Revenue in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT", for short) has been enhanced to Rs. 50,00,000/-. In a subsequent clarification issued by CBDT vide F.No. 279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ, dated 20/08/2019,

ITA No: - 6239/Del/2016 it has been clarified by CBDT that the aforesaid revised monetary limit is also applicable to all pending appeals in ITAT. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we are of the view that this appeal filed by Revenue is not maintainable. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed being not maintainable, having regard to aforesaid CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with aforesaid CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 in the light of aforesaid clarification dated 20/08/2019.

[C]. Before leaving, we clarify that Revenue will be at liberty to approach Income Tax Appellate Tribunal U/s 254(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking recall of this order and, for restoration of the appeal if it is found that this appeal of Revenue is not covered by aforesaid CBDT Circulars dated 08.08.2019 and 11.07.2018.

[D]. In the result, the appeal by Revenue is dismissed. Our decision was orally pronounced in the Open Court after conclusion of hearing on the date of hearing. Now, this written order is pronounced in Open Court on 19.09.2019

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →