DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA V. ADITYA VIKRAM LAKHOTIA, HOWRAH

MA 61/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application (MA No. 61/KOL/2025) filed by the Revenue against Aditya Vikram Lakhotia, concerning an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had deleted an addition of Rs. 42,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that the case involved money laundering, thus falling under an exception in the CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, which would allow for an appeal despite the monetary limit. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue did not provide sufficient evidence to trigger the exceptions clause and dismissed the application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787987 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC), Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801: 80 Taxman 89 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Tax effect; Rectification of order
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 61/KOL/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 1691/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata, 110, Shantipally, Aaykar Bhawan, Kolkata - 700107 .....................…...……………....Appellant vs. Aditya Vikram Lakhotia, 241/16 GT Road (n), Liluah, - 711204 ........................................ Respondent [PAN: AAVPL7669K] Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Miraj D. Shah, AR Department represented by : S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 21.11.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 25.11.2025 ORDER PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue for rectification of order dated 03.10.2024, passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1691/Kol/2024, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2013-14. The grounds of MA are as under: “1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 42,00,000/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act despite the assessee failing to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by acting in contravention of the established judicial precedents of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) followed in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801: 80 Taxman 89 (SC) by deleting the addition of Rs. 42,00,000/- made by the AO? Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 61/Kol/2025 Aditya Vikram Lakhotia 2 3. That the instant case falls under exceptional clause (h) of para no.3.1 of the CBDT's Circular No.5/2024, dated 15.03.2024 vide F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt.) and therefore, the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue before the Tribunal does not apply in this case. 4. That the Department craves leave to add, modify or alter any of the ground(s) of appeal and/or adduce additional evidence at any time during the appellate proceedings.” 2. During the course of hearing, the Ld. DR emphasized on clause 3.1(h) of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024. It was stated that the case involved money laundering and hence was covered within the exceptions mentioned in Clause 3.1(h). The Ld. AR, on the other hand, stated that there was no allegation of large scale money laundering as envisaged under the said Clause of the CBDT Circular (supra). In fact, it was pointed out that the small tax effect itself was evidence of the fact that there was no large-scale money laundering involved. 2.1 We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records. We find that the Revenue has not been able to cite any plausible reason whereby the exceptions clause gets triggered in this particular case. Accordingly, we find no error in the ITAT’s order and thereby dismiss the MA filed by the Revenue. 3. In result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 25.11.2025 Sd/- Sd/- [George Mathan] [Sanjay Awasthi] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 25.11.2025 AK, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com MA No. 61/Kol/2025 Aditya Vikram Lakhotia 3 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR) //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "