ITO WARD 20(2)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. PUNEET JAYANTILAL JAIN, MUMBAI

ITA 1200/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, which had deleted an addition of Rs. 85,02,627 treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on the assessee's failure to provide evidence of gold transactions. The CIT(A) found the addition unjustified, leading to the ITO's appeal. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the low tax effect, adhering to the CBDT's directive on monetary limits for filing appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23995 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR-80
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHNA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYAPRAKASH SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Tax effect
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 1200/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITO Ward 20(2)(1), Room No. 304, 3rd floor, Piramal Chambers Dr. SS Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai-400015. Vs. Puneet Jayantilal Jain, B-710, Shankeshwar Darshan Brahmanwadi Seth Motisha Lane, Mazgaon, Mumbai-400010. PAN NO. AERPJ 5451 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Satyaprakash Singh Revenue by : Mr. Krishnakumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25/09/2024 Date of pronouncement : 28/10/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue has been preferred against order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was deleting the addition of Rs.85,02,627/ AO who treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to provide the evidence relating to sales/delivery of gold to Shr Parmar and the same was unexplained during the course of assessment proceedings? 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 85,02,627/ the AO who treated 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that Shri. Dhiraj Parmar has never dealt with trading in gold in his life time before demonetization period and the bills submitted by the assessee found to be non during assessment proceedings as the assessee is dependent on his son and has no source of income of its own? 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decisions in the case of Su coming to a conclusion only on the basis of the arguments advanced by the assessce. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that in the case addition of Rs.85,02,627/ section 68 of the Income deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR submitted the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than the threshold amount of Rs.60,00,000/ which has been fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for filing appeal to the Tribunal vide Circular No. 09/2024 New Delhi dated 17.09.2024. Therefore, in view of the tax effect in the Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.85,02,627/- made by the AO who treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to provide the evidence relating to sales/delivery of gold to Shr Parmar and the same was unexplained during the course of assessment proceedings? Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 85,02,627/- made by the AO who treated as unexplained cast credit u/s. 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that Shri. Dhiraj Parmar has never dealt with trading in gold in his life time before demonetization period and the bills submitted by the assessee found to be non-genuine/suspicious by the AO during assessment proceedings as the assessee is dependent on his son and has no source of income of its own? On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decisions in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR coming to a conclusion only on the basis of the arguments advanced by the assessce. At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that in the case addition of Rs.85,02,627/ Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which has been disputed by the Revenue . The Ld. DR submitted the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than the threshold amount of Rs.60,00,000/ has been fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for filing appeal to the Tribunal vide Circular No. 09/2024 New Delhi dated 17.09.2024. Therefore, in view of the tax effect in the Puneet Jayantilal Jain 2 ITA No. 1200/MUM/2024 Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the justified in made by the AO who treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to provide the evidence relating to sales/delivery of gold to Shri. Dhiraj Parmar and the same was unexplained during the Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in made by as unexplained cast credit u/s. 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that Shri. Dhiraj Parmar has never dealt with trading in gold in his life time before demonetization period and the bills submitted by the assessee ne/suspicious by the AO during assessment proceedings as the assessee is dependent on his son and has no source of income On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decisions mati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR-80 and coming to a conclusion only on the basis of the At the outset, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that in the case addition of Rs.85,02,627/- invoking tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) has been has been disputed by the Revenue . The Ld. DR submitted the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than the threshold amount of Rs.60,00,000/- has been fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for filing appeal to the Tribunal vide Circular No. 09/2024 New Delhi dated 17.09.2024. Therefore, in view of the tax effect in the present appeal being less than the threshold limit treated as withdrawn and accordingly dismissed. 3. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 28/10/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// present appeal being less than the threshold limit treated as withdrawn and accordingly dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. nounced in the open Court on 28/10/2024. Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Puneet Jayantilal Jain 3 ITA No. 1200/MUM/2024 present appeal being less than the threshold limit, the appeal is In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. /10/2024. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "