ACIT 18(1), MUMBAI vs. GADIA EXPORTS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2409/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 July 2018AY 2008-093 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the submission that the tax effect of the appeal was below ₹20 Lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made on account of unsecured loans and interest expenditure. The additions were based on the AO's finding that the loan was from an accommodation entry provider following a search action.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable due to low tax effect, and the validity of additions made on account of alleged accommodation entries.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra
For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan
Hearing: 25.07.2018Pronounced: 25.07.2018

O R D E R

PER C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai in Appeal No. CIT(A)-29/IT-393/AC-18(1)/15-16 dated 09.01.2017 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal: - “1. 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. 30,00,000/- made by the A.O. under section 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan from the person engaged in providing the accommodation entry.

1.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring the facts that a search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and various companies operated by him and (A.Y:2008-09) M/s. Gadia Exports he was found to be an entry operator without any genuine business activity.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in ignoring the facts that all transactions entered with Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and various concerns operated and controlled by him were in the nature of accommodation entry.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,52,493/- made by the A.O. on account of interest expenditure on such bogus loan from the person engaged in providing accommodation entry.

5. For the above mentioned reason and any other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is requested that the order of the CIT(A) be quashed and that of the A.O. be restored.

6.

The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground, which may be necessary.”

3.

At the time of hearing, Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that tax effect on the issue in the present appeal is below ₹ 20 Lacs and in view of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11/07/2018 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt), the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable. A statement showing calculation of tax effect is also furnished according to which the tax effect comes to ₹.11,05,522/-.

4.

Departmental Representative also agreed with the above submission of the Authorized Representative of the assessee. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue on account of low tax effect.

5.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →