Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) deleting an addition of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained cash credit. The revenue contended that the assessee failed to submit necessary sale and purchase details. The assessee argued that the tax effect involved was below the threshold limit for filing an appeal.
Held
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the threshold limit of Rs. 60,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the appeal filed by the revenue was maintainable given the tax effect involved. A secondary consideration was the correctness of the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made by the AO.
Sections Cited
68, 147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 09/05/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made in the Assessment order without appreciating the facts as brought on record.
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that assessee has failed to submit the details of sale book and purchase book for last three years prior to the relevant previous year
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that assessee had not submitted complete sales bills and purchase bills for the relevant financial year.
4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on evidence produced during appellate proceedings without allowing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer for examining the same as required under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.”
At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is only of `. 36,43,229/– which is less than the threshold limit of `. 60,00,000/– for filing appeal before the Tribunal.
On the contrary, the ld. CIT–DR submitted that he may be allowed to verify such tax effect mentioned in Form 36 is different.
We have considered the rival submission and find that the ld. AO himself has calculated the tax payable by the assessee. Considering the fact that tax effect in the present appeal is less than `. 60,00,000/–, therefore the appeal of revenue is dismissed as not maintainable however, the revenue is given liberty to file 2 Shri Ashish Natha Chakkarwar appropriate application for recall of the order if at later stage, if it is discovered that tax effect is more than the threshold limit of `. 60,00,000/– or the case is covered by any exceptional clause of Circulars of CBDT.
In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order announced in open court on 27th February 2026 at the time of hearing.
Sd/– Sd/– KHETTRA MOHAN ROY PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER