DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI vs. JAI MATA DI LANDSCAPERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4125/DEL/2018Status: HeardITAT Delhi29 August 2023AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made on account of unexplained investment and unexplained credits. The assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT circulars. The primary issue of unexplained investment and credits was not adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 29.08.2023Pronounced: 29.08.2023

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 4125/Del/2018
C.O. No. 159/Del/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

C.O. by the assessee preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-24, New Delhi, dated 13.03.2018 pertaining to AY 2012-13. The grievance of the Revenue reads as under:

“1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in facts.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition Rs. 72,00,000/- on account of unexplained credits /receipts.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the books of account of the assessee produced before the CIT(A) without verification of the same and more so when the full books of accounts were not produced before the assessing officer during the course of the assessment proceedings despite repeated opportunities.

5.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the contentions of te assessee that mere payments though bank/ cheque explained the source of investment on the absence of any other supporting documents.

6.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts by holding that by mere submission of a part of an unverified ledger the assessee has discharged his primary onus. 7. the appellant craves leave to add, amend any / all the ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of notice, therefore, we decided to proceed exparte.

3.

A perusal of the grounds of appeal shows that the tax effect would be less than 50 lakhs and therefore this appeal by the Revenue has to be dismissed in the light of the C.O. No. 159/Del/2018 Jai Mata Di Landscapers P. Ltd. CBDT circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. In the light of the CBDT Circular No.

17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, the appeal is dismissed and the C.O. becomes infructuous.

4.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and C.O. becomes infructuous.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29.08.2023

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →