ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, DELHI V. ASHOK KUMAR TYAGI, DELHI

ITA 4516/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Delhi against Ashok Kumar Tyagi concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The Revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A)-23, Delhi, which had deleted certain additions made under sections 56(1), 69A, and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The additions were related to unexplained income and cash payments. The Revenue argued that the assessee did not respond to summons and show cause notices, failing to substantiate his claims under section 44AD and explain the incriminating material found during a search. However, the appeal was dismissed based on the low tax effect, adhering to the CBDT's revised monetary limits for filing appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474659 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAVED AKHTAR
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 131; 44AD; 69C; 69A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4516/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19) Asst. CIT Central Circle-3, Delhi. Vs. Ashok Kumar Tyagi H. No. A-100, Gali No.3, Main Mandoli Road East Nathu Colony, Shadara, Delhi-110093. PAN-AEQPT9618F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 17/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 17/02/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This is appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-23, Delhi dated 27/07/2024 for Asst. Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue has challenged the order of CIT(A) on following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 34,00,360/-made u/s 56(1) of the Act on account of income from other source ignoring the facts that the assessee did not respond to summons issued u/s 131 of the Act multiple times for recording his statement and verify the nature of business which he had claimed u/s 44AD of the Act. 2 ITA No.4516 /Del/2024 ACIT vs Ashok Kumar Tyagi Further, the assessee did not respond to show cause notice issued during assessment proceedings. From the conduct of the assessee and his statement recorded on 16.05.2018, clearly established that assessee had no explanation and evidence to prove genuineness of claim u/s 44AD of the Act. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the protective addition u/s 69A of the Act for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- despite the facts that document found during the course of search clearly show that the assessee (who is brother-in-law of Sh. Pradeep Tyagi) had made payment in cash to Sh. Fazaan on 28.01.2018. Assessee did not respond to summons u/s 131 of the Act issued during the course of assessment proceedings and therefore did not discharge the onus to explain the incriminating material seized in search. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting protective addition u/s 69C of the Act for an amount of Rs. 71,67,000/-ignoring the fact that the document found during the course of search clearly indicated that the assessee has made cash payments to certain persons. The document contained the details of project in relation to which payment is made, date of payment and persons to whom the payment was made. 4 Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee did not respond to summons u/s 131 of the Act issued during the course of assessment proceedings and therefore did not discharge the onus of explaining the incriminating material found/seized during the search. 5. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 3. Ongoing through the facts of the case, we find that an addition of Rs.71,67,000/- challenged in ground No.3, Rs.5,00,000/- challenged in ground No.2 are protective additions. The remaining addition of Rs.34,00,360/- is on substantive basis. 4. From the facts it is found that the tax effect in this case is below the limits prescribed by the latest CBDT vide Circular No.09/2024 dated 17/09/2024 revising the monetary limit for filing the appeals 3 ITA No.4516 /Del/2024 ACIT vs Ashok Kumar Tyagi before the Tribunal to Rs.60 Lacs. In such circumstances, the present appeal filed by the Revenue in case of low tax effect is not maintainable. 5. In conclusion, by applying the CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17/09/2024 (supra), the captioned appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order is pronounced in open court on 17/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANISH AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 17/02/2025 PK/Sr. Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "