What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2010-2011. The appeal was filed with a delay of 221 days, which was condoned due to a COVID-19 related ordinance extending filing deadlines. However, the Revenue later admitted that the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lacs.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT given the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT circulars.

DCIT vs Sri Gouranga Charan Sahoo… | ITAT Cuttack 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: SHRICHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL

For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR

Pronounced: 11/5/20

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘ SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI SHRICHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-2011 DCIT, Circle -1(1), 1(1), Vs. Sri Gouranga Charan Sajhoo, Sri Gouranga Charan Sajhoo, Cuttack At: At: Thodiapada, Thodiapada, Sompur, Sompur, Jagatsinghpur PAN/GIR No.AGVPS 3269 C AGVPS 3269 C (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, DR S.C.Mohanty, DR Date of Hearing : 01 /4/ 2021 1 Date of Pronouncement : 11/5/20 /2021 O R D E R

This is an appeal filed by an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the inst the order of the CIT(A), Cuttack dated 17.1.2020 CIT(A), Cuttack dated 17.1.2020 for the assessment year 2010 2010-2011.

The appeal is time barre The appeal is time barred by 221 days. The department has filed a d by 221 days. The department has filed a letter dated 3rd July, 2020 from the Pr. CIT, Cuttack addressed to DCIT, July, 2020 from the Pr. CIT, Cuttack addressed to DCIT, Circle -1(1), Cuttack, stating that although the time limit for filing the appeal 1(1), Cuttack, stating that although the time limit for filing the appeal 1(1), Cuttack, stating that although the time limit for filing the appeal expires on 8.5.2020 but as per the Ordinance i.e. Taxation and Other Laws on 8.5.2020 but as per the Ordinance i.e. Taxation and Other Laws on 8.5.2020 but as per the Ordinance i.e. Taxation and Other Laws (relation of certain provis (relation of certain provisions) Ordinance, 2020, dated 24.6.2020, wherein, ions) Ordinance, 2020, dated 24.6.2020, wherein, the time limit for filing of further appeal has been extended to 31.3.2021. the time limit for filing of further appeal has been extended to 31.3.2021. the time limit for filing of further appeal has been extended to 31.3.2021. Therefore, in pursuance to the ordinance dated 24.6.2020, the department Therefore, in pursuance to the ordinance dated 24.6.2020, the department Therefore, in pursuance to the ordinance dated 24.6.2020, the department

P a g e 1 | 3 has filed appeal on 16.12.2020. In view of above, I condone the delay of 221 days and admit the appeal for hearing.

None appeared on behalf of respondent-assessee when the case was called for hearing. Hence, I proceed to dispose the appeal of the revenue qua-respondent assessee after hearing ld D.R. and on the basis of materials available on record of the Tribunal.

4. The revenue has raised the following grounds:

“1. The ld CIT(A) was not justified in directing to adopt only 5% of the undisclosed receipts as income without any finding as regards any undisclosed expenditure by the assessee.

2. The ld CIT(A) was not justified in holding that labour charges were paid without even an oral contract which is never possible in business.”

Without going into the merits of the case, on a query from the Bench, Ld. DR admitted that the tax effect on the disputed issue is much below Rs.50 lacs and in view of CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable.

The CBDT vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 has revised the monetary limit for filing the appeals before the Tribunal to Rs.50 Lacs. Further, CBDT vide letter dated 20.08.2019 has also clarified that Circular No. 17/2019 would be applicable to all pending appeals. In such circumstances, the present appeal filed by the Revenue in case of low tax effect is not maintainable.

P a g e 2 | 3

Before parting, I clarify here that the Revenue shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for re-institution of appeal, if the requisite material is brought to show that the appeal is protected by the exceptions prescribed in para-10 of the Circular dated 11.07.2018.

In conclusion, by applying the CBDT Circular dated 08.08.2019 and letter dated 20.08.2019 (supra), the captioned appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 11 /5/2021. Sd/- (Chandra Mohan Garg) JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 11 /5/2021 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : DCIT, Circle -1(1), Cuttack 2. The Respondent. Sri Gouranga Charan Sajhoo, At: Thodiapada, Sompur, Jagatsinghpur 3. The CIT(A)-, Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT-, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order

Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 3 | 3

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1), CUTTACK vs. SRI GOURANGA CHARAN SAHOO, JAGATSINGPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments