THE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,JANJGIR CHAMPA, JANJGIR CHAMPA vs. M/S M/S AGRATA RETAIL PVT LTD, JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.)

Before advancing the matter on facts for adjudication, it is necessary to reproduce grounds challenged by the appellant revenue as under; “1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and on points of law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹1,54,00000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit.” “2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and on points of law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving a finding that out of ₹90 lacs, the amount of ₹65 lacs was received from Vasudha Vyapar (P) Ltd. in the F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12, a finding which is contrary to the figures reflected in assessee’s audited Balance Sheet as on 31st March, 2012” “3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case as well as points of law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving a finding that the provisions of law u/s 68 of the Act are not applicable to the issue of addition of ₹1,54,00000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit” “4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and on points of law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not distinguishing the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of M/s Bisakha Sales (P) Ltd. vs. CIT-II, Kolkata [ITA No. 1493/Kolkata/20134] as relied upon by the AO in the assessment order.” “5. Whether on points of law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not distinguishing the ratio of the case laws such as CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [82 ITR 540(SC)], Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [214 ITR 801 (SC)] and CIT vs. Shri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. [63 ITR 609 (SC) as relied upon by the AO in the assessment order.” “6. Whether on points of law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred by giving a finding which is contrary to the ratio of the decisions of ITAT Kolkata ‘B’ Bench in the case of M/s Subhlakshmi Vanijya (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT-1, Kolkata in and other cases dated 30/07/2015” “7. Whether on points of facts and on points of law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by giving a finding which is contrary to the evidence on record, as the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the identity, capacity and the genuineness of the three parties namely, M/s Vasudha Vyapara (P) Ltd., M/s Pixel Advertising (P) Ltd. and M/s Embee Resources (P) Ltd., a finding which is factually incorrect, thereby rendering the decision, which is perverse” “8. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by holding the decision in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, though there is no direct nexus between the conclusion of fact and primary fact upon which that conclusion is based” ITAT-Raipur Page 2 of 6 AY 2012-2013 “9. Any other ground that may be adduced, deleted or modified at the time of hearing.”

The brief facts of the case under appeal are; The assessee is a closely held company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 had for the AY 2012-2013 filed its e-return with a declared income of ₹27,270/-. The return of income [for short “ITR”] was selected under CASS for scrutiny u/s 143(2) of the Act, and the regular assessment were completed with an addition of ₹1,54,00,000/- u/s 68 and disallowance u/s 14A for sum of ₹2,05,128/-Aggrieved by such an addition and disallowance, the assessee company challenged the same before first appellate authority, wherein the Ld CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case in the light of legal precedents, gave partial relief to the assessee by deleting the addition made u/s 68 and sustained the disallowance made u/s 14A. Not accepting the adjudication of first appellate authority, the revenue is before the Tribunal seeking reversal of order passed by Ld CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act.

On this date of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee [for short “AR”] referring to an application dt 03/02/2022 for adjournment, brought to the notice of the bench that, the appeal of the revenue falls below the tax effect within the purview of Central Board of Direct Taxes [for short “CBDT”] Circular 17/20119 r.w. Circular 3/2018.

The learned departmental representative [for short “DR”] admitting the fact submitted before the bench that; 5.1 As per Circular No 3/2018, F. No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt) dt 11/07/2018 issued by CBDT, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, no appeal shall be filed by the Revenue in respect of an assessment year ITAT-Raipur Page 3 of 6 AY 2012-2013 or years in which the tax effect is less than the monetary limit as specified in para 3 as under;

Resultantly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, with no order as to cost.