INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 313/NAG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 September 2023AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK RIPOTE (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that the appeal did not meet the minimum tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs prescribed by a CBDT circular, and the issue was about cash credit, not bogus LTCG/STCG from penny stocks.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 50 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit. The assessee had claimed this amount as share application money.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs as unexplained cash credit was rightly deleted by the CIT(A), and if the appeal met the monetary limits for filing before the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 132(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK RIPOTE

Hearing: 18.09.2023Pronounced: 28.09.2023

2012, arises against the CIT(A)-1, Nagpur’s Order No.CIT(A)-1/ 10538/2018-19, dated 05.08.2019, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2. The Revenue raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

2 I.T.A.No.313/NAG./2019 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 made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act, amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs as unexplained cash credit, inspite of the fact that onus of proving credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction was solely with the assessee ?

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee company has duly discharged the onus placed upon it u/s 68 of the Act ?

3.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in treating the statement

given by Shri. Shirish C Shah as general statement inspite of the fact that this statement was recorded during the search proceedings u/s 132(4) of the I.T.Act,1961. 4. This 2nd appeal is being filed in view of OM No. 279/

Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ(PI) dated 16/09/2019 wherein it is directed that the monetary limits fixed for filing appeals before ITAT/HC and SLPs before Supreme Court shall not apply in case of the assessee claiming bogus LTCG/ STCG through penny stocks and shall be contested on merits and hence this 2nd appeal.

5. Any other ground that may be raised during the proceedings.”

3 I.T.A.No.313/NAG./2019 3. Suffice to say, the first and foremost issue which arises for our apt adjudication herein is that of applicability of CBDT’s circular no. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 prescribing minimum tax effect of Rs.50 lakhs in all Revenue’s appeals before the tribunal with retrospective effect. The Revenue’s stand as per it’s 4th substantive ground is that the instant case, although involve tax effect of Rs.30,51,710/- only [column no.10 in Form.36] but, the same falls under the exception clause as the assessee had claimed bogus LTCG/STCG through penny stocks.

4.

We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant fourth substantive ground seeking to carve out an exception to the aforesaid CBDT’s low tax effect circular. This is for the precise reason that the sole issue before us is regarding correctness of Assessing Officer’s action having treated the assessee’s share application/money of Rs.50 lakhs as unexplained cash credits than any income derived from sale and purchase of shares and scrip(s) treated as penny stock in the departmental investigation. We thus reject the Revenue’s instant fourth substantive ground in very terms. So is the out come of it’s instant main appeal which is dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed minimum tax effect of Rs.50 lakhs as per CBDT’s circular (supra). Ordered accordingly.

4 I.T.A.No.313/NAG./2019

5.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as involved lower than the prescribed tax effect.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.09.2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →