DCIT, CC-2(2), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. ATUL RAMSHARAN GUPTA, NAGPUR

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

O R D E R PER BENCH

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 19/06/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of 2 Atul Ramsharan Gupta ITA no.274/Nag./2023 C.O. no.3/Nag./2024 Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016–17.

–

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,03,68,800/- made by the AO on account of sum received including bonus on maturity of 'Keyman Insurance Policy' as profits in lieu of salary.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in comparing the assessee case which is related to the scrutiny assessment with the case of other group concerns specifically the case of Shri Vipul Gupta related to the ITSC, which requires the income of the assessee which has not been disclosed before Assessing Officer, deleting addition of Rs.3,03,68,800/-.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the action of AO in invoking the provisions of section 17(3) (ii) & taxing the gross surrender value is improper without appreciating the reasoning given by AO, on addition of policy amount received, by way of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 and CBDT Circular No. 762 dated 18.02.1998.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding action of the AO as ultravirus of section 153A and unjustified, finding that the AO has neither unearthed any incriminating documents during search nor any such incriminating documents have been relied upon by him for making the impugned addition uls 153A Without appreciating the fact that the addition of Rs.3,03,68,800/- was made on account of search action which was sequenced by issue of notice u/s 153A, filing of ITR in response to u/s 153A and considering the Rs.3.03,68,800/- for taxation. DS 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering action of AO as ultravirus of section 153A and unjustified, indirectly allowing the additional ground of the assessee without giving opportunity to the AO.

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.32,440/- made by the AO on account of deduction which had not claimed in original return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act.

7. Any other ground that may be raised during the course of appellate proceedings.”

3 Atul Ramsharan Gupta ITA no.274/Nag./2023 C.O. no.3/Nag./2024 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.

C.O. no.3/Nag./2024 Arising out of Revenue’s Appeal For Assessment year 2016–17

4 Atul Ramsharan Gupta ITA no.274/Nag./2023 C.O. no.3/Nag./2024 filed by the Revenue in limine on the ground that the tax effect in the said appeal filed by the Revenue is below the taxable limit of ` 60 lakh in view of the recent CBDT Circular no. no.09 of 2024, dated 17/09/2024, therefore, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and is liable to be dismissed. However, needless to mention here that we have granted liberty to the Revenue 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.