ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another v. M/s Mehdipur Balaji Impex Pvt. Ltd.
Income Tax Appeal No.10 of 2022 ·
Supplied court order; no reported citation stated
Revenue appeal dismissed below the monetary limit; the recorded unsecured-loan dispute did not attract the penny-stock capital-gain/loss exception.
Division Bench · Surya Prakash Kesarwani · Jayant Banerji
1. Facts of the case
In Income Tax Appeal No.10 of 2022, Revenue challenged treatment of unsecured loans. The Assessing Officer had disbelieved certain unsecured loans and added them to income by invoking Sections 68 and 69. The supplied order states no assessment year, PAN, loan amount or numerical appeal threshold.
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court distinguished the recorded unsecured-loan controversy from bogus long-term capital gains or short-term capital losses through penny stocks. It considered Revenue's reliance on Circular 23/2019 and an office memorandum as a claimed exception to the Board's appeal monetary limits. The Court found that the penny-stock capital-gain/loss controversy was absent in this appeal.
3. Judicial decision
Because the admitted quantum was below the Board's monetary limit and the claimed penny-stock exception did not apply to the recorded controversy, the Court held the appeal not entertainable and dismissed it.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue's appeal ended at the monetary-limit/exception stage. The dismissal did not decide that the unsecured loans were genuine or adjudicate the ultimate merits of every Section 68 or 69 addition.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Preserve each High Court docket: regular appeals 10/2022 and 9/2022 and defective appeal 12/2022 are separate originals, despite nearly identical reasons. The source cites the memorandum as 16 September 2019 in one sentence and 19 September 2019 in another. Do not silently correct the judgment or claim that both are separately verified instruments. Keep this source-date discrepancy explicit; the narrow recorded dismissal can be reported without asserting an externally corrected memorandum date. Do not infer AY/PAN, a numerical threshold or current-law clearance.
Source and verification
Complete supplied one-page original read and visually inspected; original PDF bytes verified by SHA-256. Only source-identified provisions and assessment years are recorded. No PAN is stated. Subsequent treatment and current law have not been cleared.
Source SHA-256: 8e1bb6db84c25a33046ce5a4b35f85c7c411591f01539628f99a4945186c6cf9
Only source-identified provisions are recorded. No current monetary threshold, current statutory equivalence or 2025 Act applicability is inferred.
Source checked 2026-10-19. Subsequent proceedings and current precedential treatment have not been comprehensively verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from an identified primary report. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.