ACIT(OSD), RANGE-10, C. R BUILDING, ITO, NEW DELHI vs. G B SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, LAJPAT NAGAR, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1554/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)3 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 as the total tax effect of Rs. 50,28,724/- was below the monetary limit of Rs. 60 lacs for filing departmental appeals before the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions of Rs. 63,96,525/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization and Rs. 2,64,490/- under Section 41(1) for cessation of liabilities. The tribunal proceeded ex-parte as the assessee did not appear.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of Revenue's appeal before ITAT due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. SHAMIM YAHYA & SH. VIMAL KUMAR

Hearing: 27/11/2024Pronounced: 03/12/2024

ORDER

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM:

1.

The Revenue has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, New Delhi dated 07.02.2024, relating to assessment year 2017- 18 on the following grounds:-

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, in deleting the addition of Rs. 63,96,525/- u/s. 68 of the Act on account of extra amount of cash included in the cash book to justify the huge cash deposit in the bank account during demonetization and ignoring the fact that nature and source of cash withdrawals made by assessee company remained unexplained?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, in deleting the addition of Rs. 63,96,525/- u/s. 68 of the Act, ignoring the fact that assessee has failed to discharge the primary onus cast upon him to prove the nature and source of such cash credit and genuineness of the transaction, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rupal Jain vs. CIT (2023).

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,64,490/- on account of cessation of liabilities u/s. 41(1) of the Act, ignoring the fact that these dues were pending for more than three years and there is no pendency of dispute at any forum has been reported by the assessee against the respective sundry creditors? 4. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the Assessee, despite issue of notice dated 21.8.2024. However, it is noticed that notice dated 21.8.2024 has been received back with the postal remarks “no such company”. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, we are deciding this appeal of the Revenue, exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. AR and perusing the records.

3.

On perusal of Form No. 36 vide column no. 10, it has been noticed that the total tax effect in this case is Rs. 50,28,724/-. Thus, in view of the CBDT’s Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable, as in view of the aforesaid CBDT’s Circular, the monetary limit for filing the departmental appeals before the ITAT is Rs. 60 lacs. Ld. DR also fairly agreed that the tax effect in this appeal is below the prescribed limit, hence, he has no objection if the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect.

4.

In view of the above position, we deem it fit and proper to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue in the light of the latest Circular No.09/2024 of the CBDT dated 17.09.2024, as not maintainable.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 03/12/2024.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →