DCIT-CC-1(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. MOR ALLOYS PVT. LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 233/NAG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 October 2024AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the revised monetary limit as per CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition made on account of suppressed sales. The assessee argued that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the revised monetary limit for appeals to the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect is below the revised monetary limit specified by CBDT circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani
For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Date of Hearing – 22/10/2024 Date of Order – 25/10/2024

O R D E R PER BENCH

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 30/05/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2011–12.

2.

In its appeal, the Revenue has raised following grounds:–

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of undisclosed income u/s. 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of suppression of sales amounting to Rs.70,15,311/-.

2 Mor Alloys Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.233/Nag./2023

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of undisclosed income u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of suppression of sales amounting to Rs.70,15,311/- without appreciating the facts that during survey proceedings, Mr. Ashfaque Ahmed, Director of Mor Alloys Pvt., Ltd., in his statement had accepted rate negotiation of off grade Silico Manganese with commission agent Shri Suresh Kakani in whatsapp chat received and also accepted that cash generated by sale of Off-grade Silico Manganese has been handed over to Shri Manvendra Mor, Director of the Company.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the finding given by the AO on page No. 4 & 5 of the assessment order that in the statement of commission agent Shri Suresh Kankani recorded by DDIT (Inv.), Unit-II(3), Hyderabad, Shri Kankani has explained the mode of operation of the sequence of receipt of cash and payment of cash as directed by director Shri Manvendra Mor.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the ground realities and and erred in directing the addition made by the Α.Ο.

3.

At the outset, the leaned Authorised Representative appearing for the assessee submitted that the tax effect on the amount disputed by the Revenue is below the revised monetary limit of ` 60 lakh applicable to appeals before the Tribunal, as per CBDT Circular no.09 of 2024, dated 17/09/2024. Thus, the learned A.R. submitted that the Revenue’s appeals being covered under the aforesaid Circular are not maintainable.

4.

The learned Departmental Representative agreed that the tax effect on the amount disputed by the Revenue is below the monetary limit of ` 60 lakh for both the years under consideration.

5.

Having heard the arguments of rival parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below, we are of the view that the tax effect on the amount disputed by the Revenue in the present appeal is below the revised monetary limit of ` 60 lakh as per

3 Mor Alloys Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.233/Nag./2023 CBDT Circular cited supra. It also stands clarified by the CBDT that the revised monetary limit of ` 60 lakh, as per the aforesaid CBDT Circulars, would also apply to all pending appeals. In view of the aforesaid, Revenue’s appeals deserve to be dismissed. However, the Revenue is given liberty to seek recall of this order if, at a later point of time, it is found that the appeal fall under any of the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular referred to above.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/10/2024

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →