INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. BEED ZILHA KRUSHI KHATE RAJYA KARMCHARI SAHKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT BEED, BEED

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co-operative Society of Employees of State Agricultural Department. The assessee had not filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for AY 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) was having information regarding cash deposits of Rs.1,81,51,000/- into bank account by the assessee during the year. Therefore, the AO issued notice u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 07.04.2022. Then the AO passed order u/s 148 of the Act dated 07.04.2022. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 22.11.2023 declaring income of Rs.Nil claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that cash deposits were duly explained. However, the AO disallowed the assessee’s

It is observed that as per Form No. 36 tax effect is less than Rs.60 lakhs. As per the Circular No. 9 of 2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the mandatory limit to file appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is Rs.60 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. During the proceedings, we specifically requested the Ld. DR to explain us, whether the appeal falls in any of the exceptional category mentioned in the Circular. However, the Ld. DR could not bring to our notice any such exception. We have perused the authorization memo signed by the Pr. CIT-1, Nashik. The said authorization memo is scanned and reproduced here as under :

Thus, it can be observed in the authorization memo also it is not mentioned whether the case falls under any exception clause. In these facts, we dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. The Revenue will be at liberty to move a Miscellaneous Application if they can prove that the case

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.