ACIT Vs Hindukush Construction Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) against Hindukush Construction Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 2016-17. The Revenue challenged the deletion of multiple additions by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), including ₹50,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for unexplained unsecured loans, ₹26,93,388 for disallowed expenses, and ₹99,05,192 for excessive depreciation. However, during the hearing, the Departmental Representative pointed out that the tax effect in the case was ₹58,18,619, falling below the threshold specified under the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No. 09/2024, dated September 17, 2024.
In light of the CBDT’s guidelines, which aim to reduce litigation in cases involving low tax effects, the ITAT deemed the appeal non-maintainable. Despite the non-appearance of the assessee, the tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal without examining the merits of the case, solely based on the CBDT’s circular. The order was pronounced on December 3, 2024, reinforcing the principle of reducing tax-related disputes with minimal financial implications.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The Revenue has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, New Delhi dated 27.02.2024, relating to assessment year 201617 on the following grounds:-
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred, in deleting the addition of Rs, 50.00.000:uA> 68 of the Act on account of “unsecured loan” and ignoring the fact that the assessee has merely furnished the Bank Statement & ITR of the entity and thus, in absence of satisfactory documentary evidences has failed to prove the genuineness & creditworthiness of the transaction and nature & source thereof remained unexplained?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld, CIT(A) has erred, in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 50,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to discharge the primary1 onus cast upon him to prove the nature & source of such loan/advances and genuineness& creditworthiness of the transaction, in view of the decision of Horrible Apex Court in the case of Rupal Jain Vs, CIT(2023)?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 26,93.388/-, ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to produce proper bills & vouchers before the AO even after having ample time with it?
4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 99,05,192/- on account of excess depreciation claimed, ignoring the fact that the assessee has drastically increased the opening WDV for the year under consideration from the closing WDV of preceding year i.e. AY 2015-16 without providing documentary evidences and having no business activity from the machine put to use on which depreciation was claimed?
5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,75,98,580/- by completely ignoring the recommendation made by the AO in his Remand Report as per the provisions of Rule 46A?
2. None appeared on behalf of the Assessee, despite issue of notice. However, it is noticed that notice has been received back from the postal authorities. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, we are deciding this appeal of the Revenue, exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. AR and perusing the records.
