Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for assessment year 2016-17, which had deleted additions related to unsecured loans (u/s 68), disallowed expenses, excess depreciation claims, and ignored the AO's remand report. The total tax effect involved in the appeal was Rs. 58,18,619/-.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This decision was based on the CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals, and the tax effect in this case was below the prescribed threshold.
Key Issues
Maintainability of the Revenue's appeal as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024; and deletion of additions/disallowances by CIT(A) related to unsecured loans, expenses, and depreciation.
Sections Cited
Income Tax Act, Section 68, Rule 46A, CBDT Circular No. 09/2024
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
ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM:
The Revenue has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, New Delhi dated 27.02.2024, relating to assessment year 2016- 17 on the following grounds:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred, in deleting the addition of Rs, 50.00.000:uA> 68 of the Act
on account of "unsecured loan" and ignoring the fact that the assessee has merely furnished the Bank Statement & ITR of the entity and thus, in absence of satisfactory documentary evidences has failed to prove the genuineness & creditworthiness of the transaction and nature & source thereof 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 disallowance of Rs. 50,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to discharge the primary1 onus cast upon him to prove the nature & source of such loan/advances and genuineness& creditworthiness of the transaction, in view of the decision of Horrible Apex Court in the case of Rupal Jain Vs, CIT(2023)?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 26,93.388/-, ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to produce proper bills & vouchers before the AO even after having ample time with it?
4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 99,05,192/- on account of excess depreciation claimed, ignoring the fact that the assessee has drastically increased the opening WDV for the year under consideration from the closing WDV of preceding year i.e. AY 2015-16 without providing documentary evidences and having no business activity from the machine put to use on which depreciation was claimed?
5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,75,98,580/- by completely ignoring the recommendation made by the AO in his Remand Report as per the provisions of Rule 46A? 2. None appeared on behalf of the Assessee, despite issue of notice. However, it is noticed that notice has been received back from the postal authorities. 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. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR submitted that the tax effect in this is Rs. 58,18,619/- and thus, in view of the CBDT’s Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable.
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.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 03/12/2024.