DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR V. SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN, NAGPUR

ITA 63/NAG/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3, Nagpur, which pertained to the assessment year 2017-18. The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 75,00,000 under section 69A of the IT Act concerning unexplained cash and gold jewellery. The primary contention was that the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the inheritance of 1500 grams of gold and had only produced a few purchase bills for jewellery. Additionally, the assessee had disclosed Rs. 1,50,00,000 during a search but only offered Rs. 75,00,000 in the return of income without a valid reason. However, the appeal was dismissed due to the low tax effect, which was below the monetary limit for filing appeals as per the latest CBDT circular.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474292 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDIPKUMAR SALUNKE
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY LOYA
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Tax effect
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.63/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–1(3), Nagpur ……………. Appellant v/s Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain 38, Bajiprabhu Nagar, Ramnagar Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AAGPJ8601G ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sanjay Loya Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 18/12/2024 Date of Order – 21/01/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. Aforesaid appeal by the Revenue is against the impugned order dated 18/02/2022, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18. 2. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised following grounds:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- u/s 69A6/- of the IT Act on account of unexplained cash & gold jewellery in spite of fact that there was no supporting evidences to show that 1500 grams was inherited by the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessee had purchased jewellery worth Rs. 76.72 Lakhs during the period from November 2009 to April 2016 in spite of the facts that the assessee had produced only few purchase bills in cash and the assessee was not filing any Wealth Tax Returns. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- u/s 69A of the IT Act on account of 2 Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain unexplained cash & gold jewellery in spite of fact that the assessee had disclosed Rs. 1,50,00,000/- during the search on account of unexplained cash & jewellery but offered only Rs. 75,00,000/- in the return of income without any valid reason. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary and/or alter any of the above grounds, as and when deemed necessary.” 3. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative, Shri Rajesh Loya, appearing for the assessee, at the very onset, pointed out that the tax effect of ` 61,73,286, per Form no.36, is erroneous. The sole addition of ` 75 lakh is being assailed. Here, the tax effect of such addition under section 115BBE of the Act is ` 57,93,750. He invited our attention to CBDT Circular no.9/2024, dated 17/09/2024, whereas the enhanced monetary limit before the Tribunal is ` 60 lakh, for filing appeal. He vehemently submitted that this Circular should apply to pending appeals also. Per–contra, the learned Departmental Representative, could not refute the said averments. It is an uncontroverted fact that the tax effect of the impugned addition is below ` 60 lakh. In tandem with the dictum of the said CBDT circular enhancing the monetary limits, the appeal being not entertainable is liable to be dismissed due to low tax effect. We order accordingly. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/01/2025 Sd/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- K.M. ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 21/01/2025 3 Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur "