THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. SMT. AMBIKA GHORPADE

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIT (A) 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2) PRESENT ADDRESS ITO WARD -6(3) (4) 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095 …APPELLANTS

The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.829/Bang/2015 for the assessment year 2009-10.

This

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the seized material found in the premises of Sri. Bharat S. Ghorpade and Sri. Karthikeya Ghropade cannot be relied on in the case of the assessee, when the seized material is relatable to the business carried on by the assessee and has nexus with the books of accounts maintained by the assessee?.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that statements recorded and seized material found from Sri. Bharat S. Ghorpade and Sri. Karthikeya Ghorpade cannot be relied on in the case of the assessee, when assessee was provided with the statements recorded and the seized material for its response, which the assessee could not disprove the contents of the seized material nor the

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in deleting the disallowance towards bogus expenditure on the ground that the statements recorded from Sri. KV Balan, Senior Manager, Shri Anthony Balaraj, junior assistant and Shri Bharat Ghorpade and the seized material was not provided to the assessee, when the seized material and the statements were provided to the assessee along with the show cause notice and the same is being replied by the assessee and recorded perverse finding?"

Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue. However, the question of law is kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.