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

ITA 268/BIL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1689 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Tax effect; Tax effect
• Section: 68; 14A; 250; 143(2); 13

Judgement Text

ITAT-Raipur Page 1 of 6 आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, न्यायपीठ रायपुर में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (Through Virtual Court at Pune) BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D. BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 268/RPR/2016 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 Income Tax Officer, Janjgir, Champa (C.G) .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. M/s Agrata Retail Pvt Ltd, C/o Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Nr Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Thankurdia Para, Sakti, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G) PAN : AAHCA9114F ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Shri R. B. Doshi Revenue by : Shri G. N. Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 04/02/2022 आदेश / ORDER PER JAMLAPPA D. BATTULL, AM; The present appeal of the Revenue is against the first appellate order of Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeals, Bilaspur [for short “CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 vide order dt 25/03/2016, which in turn sprung from the assessment order [for short “AO”] dt 20/03/2015 passed for assessment year [for short “AY”] 2012-2013 by the Assessing Officer [for short “Ld AO”] u/s 144(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”]. ITA No. 268/RPR/2016 AY 2012-2013 ITAT-Raipur Page 2 of 6 2. 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 31 st 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 ITA No. 1104/Kol/2014 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” ITA No. 268/RPR/2016 AY 2012-2013 ITAT-Raipur Page 3 of 6 “9. Any other ground that may be adduced, deleted or modified at the time of hearing.” 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 ITA No. 268/RPR/2016 AY 2012-2013 ITAT-Raipur Page 4 of 6 or years in which the tax effect is less than the monetary limit as specified in para 3 as under; Sr Appeals/SLPs in the Income Tax Matters Monetary Limit (₹) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 20,00,000 2 Before High Court 50,00,000 3 Before Supreme Court 1,00,00,000 5.2 And the para 3 of the aforementioned circular modified by CBDT by a subsequently Circular No 17/2019 dt 08/08/2019 thereby enhancing aforesaid monetary limit to the followings; Sr Appeals/SLPs in the Income Tax Matters Monetary Limit (₹) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 50,00,000 2 Before High Court 1,00,00,000 3 Before Supreme Court 2,00,00,000 5.3 The para 13 of 3/2018 stipulated that, this instruction will apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth in Hon’ble Supreme Court/High Courts/Tribunals, thus all pending appeals below the specified monetary tax limits may be withdrawn / not pressed. 5.4 The Ld DR further conceded that, the tax effect in the present Revenue’s appeal is below monetary limit of ₹50 Lakhs, however prayed that, a liberty should be given to Revenue to contest this appeal at any subsequent stage for the reasons stipulated in the foresaid circular by filing a Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal to revive this appeal for an order of recalling. ITA No. 268/RPR/2016 AY 2012-2013 ITAT-Raipur Page 5 of 6 6. Undisputedly the tax effect in this appeal filed by the Revenue is below ₹50 Lakhs, ergo keeping in view the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 r.w.c. 17/2019, we are inclined to dismiss this appeal due to low tax effect [for short “LTE”] without going into the merits of the case. While disposing so, we are granting a liberty to the appellant revenue to revive the same by filing a miscellaneous application for recalling of this order at any stage to agitate the matter/issue set forth in this appeal in accordance with the clauses as are contained in the respective circulars of the CBDT, we order accordingly. 6. Resultantly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, with no order as to cost. Order pronounced in the open court on this Friday 04 th day of February, 2022. -S/d- -S/d- (RAVISH SOOD) (JAMLAPPA D. BATTULL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; दिनाांक / Dated : 21 st day of February, 2022 आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur(C.G) 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G) 5. दवभागीय प्रदतदनदि,आयकर अपीलीय न्यायादिकरण, रायपुर बेंच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गार्डफ़ाइल / Guard File. आिेशानुसार / BY ORDER, दनजीसदचव / Private Secretary ITA No. 268/RPR/2016 AY 2012-2013 ITAT-Raipur Page 6 of 6 आयकरअपीलीयअदिकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. Sr Event Occurrence Date Attributes 1 Draft dictated on 09/02/2022 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 10/02/2022 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member 12/02/2022 Ld JM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member 12/02/2022 Ld JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS 13/02/2022 Sr.PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the Asstt Registrar 11 Date of dispatch of order