What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay. It was held that the tax effect was below the monetary limit and the Revenue failed to clearly suggest any exception clause from the CBDT circular. The Tribunal relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision.

The Revenue filed an appeal with a delay of 69 days. The assessee argued that the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular, with a tax effect of Rs. 15,60,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed on the grounds of being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular, in the absence of a clearly stated exception.

DCIT vs Purushottam Dass Goel | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

Hearing: 28.04.2026Pronounced: 28.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3012/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23

DCIT, C.C-2(3), Kolkata Purushottam Dass Goel Vs 307 Swaika Centre, Kolkata GPO, Kol-1. (PAN: ADGPG4401N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue by : Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2026

ORDER Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-26, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(Appeals)Kolkata-26/10054/2021-22 dated 30.07.2025. 2. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

The appeal filed by the revenue with a delay of 69 days. The revenue has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. The reasons given in the affidavit are plausible and valid. Consequently, the delay in filing

ITA No.3012/Kol/2025 the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the appeal filed by the revenue is below the monetary limit as per Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by CBDT. The ld. AR has submitted before us a chart showing the calculation of Rs.15,60,000/- as tax effect involved, which reads as under:

Per contra, the ld. DR opposed the submission of the assessee to submit that the case of the assessee falls within the exception clause in para 3.1(h) of the said circular.

ITA No.3012/Kol/2025

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the tax effect involved in this appeal is Rs.15,60,000/- which is below the monetary limit as prescribed by CBDT Circular dated 17.09.24. The revenue authorities have not clearly suggested the exception clause in para 3.1(h) of the said circular. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.GA/1 2026, GA/2/2026 dated 21.04.2026 has held as under: “We have perused the application, the assessment order, appellate order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax and the order of the learned Tribunal dated 24.02.2025 for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. We do not find any reason to entertain this appeal where the appellant has not clearly suggested which exceptional clause as read in para 3.1(h) as per CBDT Circular No.5 of 2024 dated 15th March, 2024 is applicable in the present appeal. As such, this appeal and the connected application being GA/2/2026 are dismissed as the tax effect in this matter is below Rs. 2 crores.” 7. Considering the above, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as the tax effect involved in this appeal. 8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/04/2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

Dated: 28/04/2026 RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

ITA No.3012/Kol/2025

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

DCIT, CC-2(3), KOLKATA vs. PURUSHOTTAM DASS GOEL, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments