Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(Appeals) order deleting an addition of Rs. 1 Crore. The deletion was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below Rs. 60 lakhs as per CBDT Circular 09/2024.
Held
The Tribunal considered the assessee's counsel's request and found that the total tax effect was below Rs. sixty lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as per the CBDT Circular.
Key Issues
Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular 09/2024.
Sections Cited
68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G” DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
O R D E R PER: KRINWANT SAHAY, AM: The appeal in this case has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2016-17. Grounds of appeal raised are as under:
1. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and fact in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made on account of unexplained Income u/s 68 of the 1.T. Act, 1961, by ignoring the facts that Himanshu Verma has admitted that he is an entry provider & has facilitated accommodation entries through the entities controlled by him & M/s Citizy Infraheights Private Limited is one of them?
2. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and fact by ignoring the fact that the Hon'ble ITAT has already held that Mr. Himanshu Verma is an entry provider?
3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by ignoring the findings of ACIT v. Raj Apiaries Exim P Ltd. the field verification conducted during the assessment proceedings, which established that M/s Citizy Infraheights Private Limited did not exist at the given address and had no business activities?
4. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
2. During proceedings before us at the very outset the counsel of the assessee filed a letter stating that the tax effect in the appeal filed by the Revenue is Rs. 30 lakhs therefore, the appeal should be dismissed as per the CBDT Circular09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. A copy of the letter given by the counsel of the assessee is reproduced as under: “KASHYAP & COMPANY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLANT TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "G", NEW DELHI In Ref of : Raj Apiaries Exim Pvt Ltd AY : 2016-17 PAN : AAECR6495D ITA No : 1839/DEL/2025 Date of Hearing 23.09.2025 Sirs That this is a departmental appeal in which addition of Rs. 1 Crore was made making a demand of additional Rs 30 lacs on the addition plus surcharge and education cess. (Copy of Computation sheet of Tax attached as Pg No 1 to 4)
That as per CBDT circular 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 the tax effect is below Rs 60 Lakh hence not maintainable. (Copy of Circular as Pg No 5 & 6). Your honors are requested to dismiss the departmental appeal.
Submitted Premjit S. Kashyap (Counsel for the Respondent) Dated: 23.09.2025”
ACIT v. Raj Apiaries Exim P Ltd. 3. Per contra, Ld. CIT(DR) relied on the order of the Assessing Officer.
We have considered the request of the learned counsel for the assessee and we find that since the total tax effect is below Rs. sixty lakhs in this case, therefore, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as per CBDT Circular 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 enhancing the tax limit to Rs. sixty lakhs for filing revenue appeals before the ITAT. However, the Revenue will be at liberty to file M.A. in case the issue involved is covered under any exceptional clause within the period prescribed by law. We order accordingly.
Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on 29.09.2025.