ACIT CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UTTRANCHAL ENGINEERING PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 441/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 August 2023AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member)5 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 as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue can approach the Tribunal later if the tax effect is found to be higher or falls under exceptions.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 1,21,47,484/- on account of unexplained share capital/premium. The original addition made by the AO was Rs. 3,02,50,000/-. The tax effect of the disputed amount was less than Rs. 50 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT given the tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “H ”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA & SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 29.08.2023Pronounced: 29.08.2023

This appeal, by the Revenue, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi, dated 23.09.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

At the time of hearing no one attended the hearing on behalf of the assessee. Notices of hearing have been returned by the postal authorities. The assessee has not provided changed address, if any, to the Registry. Therefore, the appeal was taken up for hearing ex parte to the assessee.

3.

The Revenue has filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 21 days in filing the present appeal. Learned DR reiterate d the submissions as made in the application. For the reasons stated in the application the small delay of 21 days is hereby condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing.

4.

The only effective ground of appeal, reads as under:

“Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,21,47,484/- on account of unexplained share capital/premium, when the alleged investor companies do not have creditworthiness/profit generating apparatus.” 5. From the above ground it is clear that Revenue is challenging the deletion of addition of Rs. 1,21,47,484/-. However, in form no. 36, the tax effect is stated to be Rs. 98,14,612/-. On perusal of the assessment order it is noticed that the assessing authority had made addition of Rs. 3,02,50,000/- u/s 68. Learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, thereby he deleted the entire addition. As per the assessment record there were two additions of Rs. 2,72,50,000/- made u/s 68 in respect of share capital and Rs. 30,00,000/- u/s 68 in respect of unexplained unsecured loan. However, in the ground of appeal the Revenue has assailed addition of Rs. 1,21,47,484/- made on account of unexplained share capital/premium. So, the challenge before us is limited to the extent of deletion of addition of Rs. 1,21,47,484/-. The learned DR could not refute that tax effect of this amount would be lower than Rs. 50,00,000/- and therefore, in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019, revising the monetary limit for filing of the departmental appeals to the ITAT at Rs. 50 lakhs, the present appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable.

6.

In view of the above factual position, the tax effect involved in the appeal being less than Rs. 50 lakhs, we deem it proper to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue in the light of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019, as not maintainable. However, if on a later date, the Revenue finds that the tax effect in dispute in the aforesaid appeal is more than the limit prescribed or it is protected by any of the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular, it shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall of the order and reinstitution of the appeal for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal would consider such application, as

per the extant law.

7.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 29.08.2023.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →