DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. SMT. PREMLATA JANGID, JODHPUR
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The primary reason for dismissal was that the tax effect of the additions deleted by the CIT(A) was below Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained opening balance in the creditors account. The assessee had failed to furnish confirmation from sundry creditors.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of unexplained opening balance in creditors account. Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH (SMC
Before: SHRI R.C. SHARMA
PER: R.C. SHARMA, AM
This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the
CIT(A)-2, Udaipur dated 01/03/2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14 in the
matter of order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’, for short]. The grounds raised by the
revenue in appeal are reproduced as under:
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 45,00,000/-= u/s 68 made by the AO on account of unexplained opening balance in the creditors account as the assessee failed to furnish confirmation from sundry creditors.”
I have gone through the orders of authorities below and found that tax
effect in respect of additions deleted by CIT(A) is below Rs. 20 lacs, accordingly
in term of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 this appeal deserves to be
dismissed on the ground of low tax effect.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18/07/2018.
Sd/- [R.C. SHARMA] Accountant Member Dated : 18/07/2018 *Aman. Copy to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR 6. Guard File (ITA No. 210/Jodh/2018) Assistant Registrar Jodhpur Bench
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026