Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue preferred an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2012-2013, which deleted an addition of Rs. 52,69,368 made under Section 68 of the IT Act regarding unsecured loans. The Revenue's primary ground was that the deletion was erroneous.
Held
The Departmental Representative submitted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the threshold limit of Rs. 60,00,000, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. Therefore, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was indeed below the threshold and agreed with the withdrawal.
Key Issues
Whether the deletion of addition made under Section 68 of the IT Act by the Ld. CIT(A) was erroneous and whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.
Sections Cited
68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 49, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-2013, raising following grounds:
1. "On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, The Rs. 52,69,368 Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of Rs 1,50,00,000/- with respect to the unsecured loans received by it, without with respect to the unsecured loans received by it, without appreciating that the retraction of statement is on appreciating that the retraction of statement is only an afterthought and ly an afterthought and the AO was correct in the treatment of the unsecured loans considering the AO was correct in the treatment of the unsecured loans considering the AO was correct in the treatment of the unsecured loans considering the preponderance of probability.." the preponderance of probability.."
At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that tax effect involved in the appeal is below the submitted that tax effect involved in the appeal is below the submitted that tax effect involved in the appeal is below the threshold limit of Rs.60,00,000/ hold limit of Rs.60,00,000/- which has been recently clarified which has been recently clarified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 09/2024 New Delhi dated 17.09.2024 and therefore, the Revenue 09/2024 New Delhi dated 17.09.2024 and therefore, the Revenue 09/2024 New Delhi dated 17.09.2024 and therefore, the Revenue seeks to withdraw the present appeal. seeks to withdraw the present appeal.
We have heard rival submissi We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the on of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. relevant material on record. Evidently, the tax effect Evidently, the tax effect in the appeal is below the threshold limit of Rs.60,00,000/ below the threshold limit of Rs.60,00,000/- , thus, , thus, covered by the tax Circular dated 17.09.2024. Accordingly, the appeal of the tax Circular dated 17.09.2024. Accordingly, the appeal of the tax Circular dated 17.09.2024. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn.