INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI vs. ARPITA AMEET PATHAK, MUMBAI

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the notice under Section 148 dated 19-04-2023 is time-barred, as the exclusion provisions of Section 149 were not considered. As per the 5th proviso to Section 149, the period allowed to ITA No(s). 674/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2016-17 Arpita Ameet Pathak. the assessee for compliance of notice u/s 148A(b) shall be excluded while computing limitation for issuance of notice u/s 148. Therefore, the limitation period stood extended beyond 31.03.2023, and notice dated 19.04.2023 was well within the extended statutory period. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) ignoring this mandatory statutory exclusion is erroneous in law.

The Ld. CIT(A) incorrectly held that the notice was without jurisdiction, as the assessee's non-resident status was not established during the proceedings. The CIT (A) also failed to appreciate: a. The assessee was a non-filer. b. PAN data available with the department showed resident status. c. The assessee never intimated change in residential status nor filed return declaring NRI status. d. Residential status is determined annually based on factual stay; it is not automatically inferable. e. In absence of any disclosure or compliance by the assessee, the Jurisdictional AO acted on records available in departmental database, which is legally valid.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred for deletion of addition without adjudicating merits by quashed reassessment on technical grounds, the CIT(A) did not examine merits of addition u/s 69 relating to unexplained investment of Rs. 1.51 crore, though credible information existed regarding purchase of immovable property by a non-filer."

The Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the appeal is not maintainable on account of the tax effect being below the monetary limit for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. It is pertinent to note that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the first appellate authority is less than ₹60,00,000/- as mentioned in Col. No. 10 of Form No.

The Ld. AR objected to the admission of the appeal as the tax effect is stated to be ₹52,29,603/-, which is below ₹60,00,000/-. As per the CBDT’s Circular No. 9 of 2024 issued on 17th September, 2024, the CBDT has directed its subordinate authorities not to file appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal if the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the Ld. CIT(A) is less than ₹60,00,000/-. Such order could only Assessment Year(s) 2016-17 Arpita Ameet Pathak. be challenged if it comes within the exceptions provided in the Instruction. Ld. Sr. DR could not rebut this fact nor could he demonstrate how the appeal was covered under any of the exceptions; therefore, this appeal is not maintainable.

On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we dismiss this appeal of the Revenue on account of low tax effect. However, in case on re-verification of the facts at the end of the Ld. Assessing Officer, it emerges that the tax effect is more than the limit for filing the appeal or this case falls under any of the exceptions provided in the instruction, then the Revenue will be at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall of this order and revival of the appeal. Such an application should be filed within the time limit provided in the Act.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 2nd September, 2026. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 02.09.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)