DCIT, CC-28, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI V. MILLENIUM VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

ITA 2823/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal-27), New Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to provide necessary details and documents regarding accommodation entries from M/s Murli M Chandak Securities Pvt. Ltd., involving payments and receipts of Rs. 39 lakhs and Rs. 20 lakhs respectively. However, the appeal was dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT guidelines, and no representative appeared on behalf of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 41776 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: CBDT Circular No.09/2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect; Accommodation entries
• Section: 20

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2823/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2012-13 DCIT, CC-28, NEW DELHI ROOM NO. 327, 3RD FLOOR, E-2 ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI – 55 VS. MILLENIUM VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED, DPT-801, DLF PRIME TOWER, PLOT NO. F-79 7 80, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-I, NEW DELHI – 19 (PAN: AAECM5383M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND CROSS OBJECTION NO. 78/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2012-13 MILLENIUM VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED, DPT-801, DLF PRIME TOWER, PLOT NO. F-79 7 80, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-I, NEW DELHI – 19 (PAN: AAECM5383M) VS. DCIT, CC-28, NEW DELHI ROOM NO. 327, 3RD FLOOR, E-2 ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI – 55 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : None Respondent by : None Date of hearing : 30.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 30.12.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : The Revenue has filed the Appeal and Assessee has filed the Cross Objection against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal-27), New Delhi dated 26.3.2024, relating to assessment year 2012-13. 2 2. The grounds raised in the Revenue’s appeal read as under:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that assessee has not submitted any details and documents with respect to accommodation entries taken from M/s Murli M Chandak Securities Pvt. Ltd. in which assessee has made payment of Rs. 39 lacs during the relevant assessment year. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that assessee has not submitted any details and documents with respect to accommodation entries taken from M/s Murli M Chandak Sercurities Pvt. Ltd. in which assessee has received Rs. 20 lacs during the relevant assessment year. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground (s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. At the time of hearing, it is noted that the Revenue has filed an adjournment application stating therein that Sr. DR (Shri Sanjay Tripathi) is on leave due to personal reasons. However, on perusal of the Grounds of Appeal filed by the Revenue, it is noted that the tax effect involved in this appeal is Rs. 19,47,000/-, which is below the prescribed limit of Rs. 60 lacs, as stipulated in CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Also none appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. In view of above, we are deciding the appeal of the Revenue as well as cross objection of the Assessee being exparte. 5. Keeping in view of the aforesaid factual matrix, we reject the adjournment application filed by the Revenue and deem it fit and proper to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue in the light of the aforesaid Circular No.09/2024 of the CBDT dated 17.09.2024, as not maintainable. Resultantly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 3 6. As regards assessee’s Cross objection is concerned, since we have already dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on account of low tax effect, as aforesaid, hence, no demand remains against the assessee. Therefore, the cross objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous and dismissed as such. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30.12.2024. Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "