Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON’BLE & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE
सुनवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 13/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 13/11/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER SHRI LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi *“Ld. CIT(A)”+ in DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053651668(1), dated 12/06/2023 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 *“the Act”+ for the AY 2013-14.
At the outset, it is observed from the record that there is a delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. With respect to the belated filing of the appeal, the Revenue filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay and the relevant paras is as under:
“There is a delay in filing second appeal in the case of M/s. Trident Power Private Limited, Hyderabad for the AY 2013-14 delayed by 37 days. It is humbly submitted that the records were not readily available with this office and it took time to retrieve the records in the case of the assessee for AY 2013-14. All these took time for filing of second appeal. Hence, it is humbly requested that the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal may be condoned and appeal be admitted.” On perusal of the reasons advanced by the Revenue with respect to 3. belated filing of the appeal, we find that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause that prevented the Revenue to file the appeal belatedly viz they could not retrieve the appeal record immediately. Hence, we hereby condone the delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits.
In this appeal, 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) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 56 lakhs which is taxable U/s. 68 of the Act and allowing the appeal of the assessee?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 56 lakhs without considering the fact that the assessee company has failed to discharge the onus to establish the source of share application money received from Director Sri J C Pavan Reddy as per the proviso 1 to section 68 of the Act.
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made U/s. 68 without having regard to the fact that the bank account of the Director, Sri JC Pavan Reddy from where Rs. 10 lakhs was said to be invested as share application money is not having sufficient balance and hence the creditworthiness of the Director, Sri J C Pavan Reddy was not established during the course of assessment proceedings.
4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made U/s. 68 without having regard to the fact that the sources of share application money made in cash of Rs. 46 lakhs is not explained by the assessee with conclusive evidence4 before the Assessing Officer? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the shares were not allotted to the Director, Sri JC Pavan Reddy against the share application money received by the assessee company even till the completion of the assessment ie., 29/02/2016? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,07,50,000/- made U/s. 68 as unexplained cash credits on account of cash deposits in bank account of the assessee company. 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the fact that the assessee company failed to explain the withdrawal and deposit of cash with proper evidence before the Assessing Officer and to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. 8. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary.” 5. At the outset, it was the submission of the Learned Authorized Representative *“Ld. AR”+ that the tax effect involved in this appeal is Rs.53,04,758/- as per the Form-36 filed by the Revenue. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that this appeal is not maintainable because of low tax effect in view of the Circular No.09 of 2024, dated 17/09/2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes *“CBDT”+
On the other hand, the Learned Departmental Representative *“Ld.
DR”+ relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities.
We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is found that in pursuant to the mandate of section 268A, the CBDT has issued Circular No. 09 of 2024, dated 17/09/2024 with retrospective effect, revising the monetary limit to Rs.60,00,000/- for not filing appeals before the Tribunal. It is further found that the tax effect involved in the instant appeal is less than Rs.60,00,000/- ie., Rs. 53,04,758/- only. Therefore, in view of the Circular No. 09 of 2024 (supra) issued by the CBDT, we hereby dismiss the appeal of the Revenue as not maintainable, without going into merits of the case considering the low tax effect involved in the case. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th November, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 13/11/2024 OKK, SPS