What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT instructions. The assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed for not demonstrating any grievance against the CIT(A)'s order.

The revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made on account of disallowance of employees' contribution to PF & ESI for non-deposit within the due date. The assessee filed cross-objections supporting the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of revenue's appeal due to low tax effect and maintainability of assessee's cross-objections.

I.T.O., Ward-2(1), Asansol vs Payel Enterprise, Durgapur | ITAT Kolkata 2023

Heard together (2 matters)

C.O. No. 24/Kol/2022

C.O. No.1/Kol/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

The present two appeals are directed at the instance of revenue against the separate order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 29.08.2022 passed in AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively.

The revenue has taken solitary ground of appeal in both the years. The grievance of the revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 42,15,230/- and Rs. 18,65,650/- in AY 2018-19 respectively. These additions have been made by the Ld. Assessing Officer by making a disallowance out of employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI for failure of the assessee to deposit such payment within due date provided under those Acts. The disallowances have been made in an assessment u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On receipt of the notice in the appeals of the revenue, the assessee has filed cross-objections in both the years. The assessee has supported the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) in its cross-objections.

With the assistance of Ld. Representative, we have gone through the records carefully, a perusal of the grounds of appeal

would reveal that tax effect by virtue of relief given by the Ld. CIT(A) in both the years is Rs. 14,58,806/- and Rs. 6,51,932/-. This tax effect is less than Rs.

50. Lakhs i.e. the monetary limit for challenging the orders of Ld. CIT(A). It is pertinent to observe that CBDT has issued instruction bearing No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. In this instruction it has laid down that if tax effect by virtue of relief given by the Ld. CIT(A) is less than Rs.

50. Lakhs, the Department will not file further appeal before the Tribunal. We are satisfied that tax effect is less than

50. Lakhs and therefore both the appeals are not maintainable.

4. Section 253(4) of the Act authorizes a respondent to file cross-objections in an appeal against any part of the impugned order. In other words, the cross-objector has to demonstrate his grievance against any part of the impugned order. The assessee in 3 & 598/Kol/2022 C.O.No. 24/Kol/2022 C.O. No.1/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Payel Enterprise the cross-objections have taken support of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order rather pointing out any part which is against it. Therefore its cross-objections are not maintainable. Accordingly both the cross-objections are also dismissed.

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 6th March, 2023

I.T.O., WARD-2(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. PAYEL ENTERPRISE, DURGAPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments