ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S AKSHAY COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT circulars for appeals before the ITAT. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if the appeal was found to be outside the scope of the circulars.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of 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?
Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before the ITAT given the tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit. The underlying issue was the AO's addition under Section 68 for share capital/premium.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. P. Mohanakala525 citing291 ITR 278 · 2007 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
[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:-
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 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.
ITA No: - 6338/Del/2016
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, Learned Authorized Representative of the assessee brought to our notice, at the time of hearing, that tax effect in this appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000./-. Both sides, [Representatives of Revenue and the Assessees] were in agreement, at the time of hearing before us, that the 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, it has been clarified Page | 2
ITA No: - 6338/Del/2016 by CBDT that the aforesaid revised monetary limit is also applicable to all pending appeals in ITAT. Having regard to the aforesaid, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal was not maintainable. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, 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
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Adhunik Infrastructures Private Limited…Kolkata9 Feb 2026Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. P. Mohanakala
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions, finding that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The repayment of loans fu...
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd., KolkataKolkata11 Feb 2025Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. P. Mohanakala
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the lo...
- Decputy Commission of Income Tax Central… vs Chirag Jewellers, KolkataKolkata21 Oct 2024Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. P. Mohanakala
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to establish the identity, creditworthiness of lenders, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO had fail...
- Geeta Babu Sawant, Mumbai vs ITO 22(1)(1), MumbaiMumbai12 Jan 2026Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. P. Mohanakala
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing necessary documentation. The AO's reliance on the investigation wing's findings without independe...
- Heritage Hospitals Ltd, New Delhi vs DCIT, Circle-11(1), New DelhiDelhi30 Oct 2024Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. P. Mohanakala
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the subscribers. The AO's detailed inquiries, including field investigations, ...
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Crs Builders Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026