ITO WARD - 34(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAVI KUMAR VAID, NEW DELHI
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. It held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 50 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which had partially deleted an addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The addition pertained to unsecured loans treated as accommodation entries.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting part of the addition made under Section 68, considering the loans as accommodation entries, and whether the appeal is maintainable based on the tax effect.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI KUL BHARAT
This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-12, New Delhi, dated 31.07.2020 pertaining to AY 2013-14. The Grievance of the Revenue reads as under:
“(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the part addition, made u/s 68 of the Act, ignoring the fact that the nature of the transaction of unsecured loans are accommodation entries.
ITA No.- 7/Del/2021 Ravi Kumar Vaid. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the second category i.e. square up loan out of the three ategory made by Ld. CIT(A) in the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the Peak Credit in the addition of Rs. 43,74,500/- ignoring the fact that every cash deposit are not previous withdrawal and cash book does not authenticate the same.”
A perusal of the Assessment Order shows that the AO has made addition under Section 68 of the Act at Rs. 1,36,67,500/-. The Revenue is aggrieved by the partial deletion of this addition.
It can be seen that the tax effect on the entire addition would be less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, this appeal by the Revenue is not maintainable in the light of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30.08.2023
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 New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
