INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI vs. THE SRUNGAVARAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, NATHAVARAM MANDAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 142/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 June 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue did not comply with the CBDT Circular as the tax effect was below the threshold limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable given the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit by the CBDT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAC(1),Section 250,Section 251(1)(a),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 124(5),Section 120(1),Section 102(2),Section 124(3)(a),Section 124(3)(b),Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH,

Before: SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, HON’BLE & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE

For Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr AR

आदेश / ORDER

PER UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed under section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter in short “the Act”] dated 05.12.2025 in deleting the penalty of Rs.28,52,736/- imposed under

ITA 142/VIZ/2026 THE SRUNGAVARAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY section 271AAC(1) of the Act by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department vide order dated 08.04.2024.

2.

The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The order of the Ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in allowing the appeal of the assessee in terms of the proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961 has already annulled the original assessment order and accordingly deleted the penalty order u/s.271AAC1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the facts and legal position involved. 3. The Department has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam against the assessment order u/s147 rws 144 rws 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide ITA No.24/VIZ/2026 on 09.01.2026. Since the Department is already in Appeal on the quantum order, this appeal is being filed on the deletion of penalty u s 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Department has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam against the assessment order u s 147 rws144 rws 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide ITA No.24/VIZ/2026 on 09-01-2026 on the following points (i) The LdCIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in allowing the appeal of the assessee and in quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the facts and legal position involved. (ii) The Ld CIT(A) has erred in quashing the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), when in fact the said notice had been issued strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and after due compliance with the procedure prescribed under section 148A of the Act including providing opportunity could not have been held to be invalid. (iii) The Ld CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that as per the provisions of section 148 read with section 148A of the Act, it is the jurisdictional assessing officer, who is required to satisfy himself, based on information in his possession, suggesting that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and thereafter to issue notice under section 148. The action of the JAO is the instant case being in conformity with law, the order of the. (iv) The Ld CIT(A) erred in ignoring the provisions of Section 124(5) of the Act read with directions issued under section 120(1) & 102(2) of the Act by which the JAO is expressly vested with authority over the assessees situated within the relevant territorial area. The Ld

ITA 142/VIZ/2026 THE SRUNGAVARAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY

CIT(A) is not justified in holding otherwise as the initiation of proceedings and issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid, competent and in accordance with the statutory scheme. (v) The Ld CIT(A) ignored the provisions of Section 124(3)(a) and Section 124(3)(b) of the Act. The assessee ought to raise any objections with respect to jurisdiction of the JAO within the stipulated time of one month from the date of service of notice u s 143(2) OR u s.142(1) of the Act WHARE a return of income was filed otherwise before the completion of assessment in case no return of income was filed, but not after completion of reassessment proceedings. Hence, the Ld CIT(A) is not justified in entertaining a belated jurisdictional objection contrary to the express mandate of section 124(3) nor in invalidating a notice that was otherwise validly issued by the competent JAO. (vi) The order of the Ld CIT(A) is contrary to the facts, provisions of law and judicial precedents applicable to the case and hence deserves to be set aside. 5. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the department has filed a SLP against the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs Income Tax Officer 2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP (civil) No.3574/2024 on the same issues involved. 6. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide writ petition in No.14142/2024 has set aside the notice u/s 148A(b), 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad has accorded approval for filing of SLP against the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. The appellant craves leave to add OR delete OR amend OR substitute any ground of appeal before and/OR at the time of hearing of appeal. 8. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing, it is prayed that all these above additions be restored.

3.

At the very outset, Learned Authorized Representative (for short “Ld.AR”) of the assessee submitted that the total tax effect in this appeal , filed by the Department is only Rs.28,52,736/- which is much below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT in filing appeals before the Tribunal, which is now prescribed at Rs.60 Lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, which is reproduced below.

ITA 142/VIZ/2026 THE SRUNGAVARAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY Circular No. 09/2024 F.No.279/Misc./M-74f2024-ITJ Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, 17th September, 2024 Sub:- Further enhancement of Monetary limits for filling of appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and SLPs/appeals before Supreme Court: amendment to Circular 5 of 2024- Measures for reducing litigation — Reg. Reference is invited to Circular No 5/2024 (F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt.)) dated 15.03.2024 of Central Board of Direct Taxes (the ‘Board’) vide which monetary limits for filing of income tax appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and SLP/appeals before Supreme Court have been specified. Further, exceptions to the monetary limits were also specified vide paras 3.1 and 3.2 of the said Circular. 2. As a step towards management of litigation, it has been decided by the Board to revise the monetary limits for filing of appeals in Income-tax cases as stated in Para 4.1 of the aforementioned Circular as follows: SI. No. Appeals/SLPs in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (Tax effect in Rs.) 1. Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 60 lakh 2. Before High Court 2 crore 3. Before Supreme Court 5 crore 3. Monetary limits given in paragraph 2 above with regard to filing appeal/SLP shall be applicable to all cases including those relating to TDS/TCS under the Income-tax Act, 1961 with exceptions as per paras 3.1 and 3.2 of Circular No 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024, where the decision to appeal/file SLP shall be taken on merits, without regard to the tax effect and the monetary limits. 4. It is clarified that an appeal should not be filed merely because the tax effect in a case exceeds the monetary limits prescribed above. Filing of appeal in such cases is to be decided on merits of the case. The officers concerned shall keep in mind the overall objective of reducing unnecessary litigation and providing certainty to taxpayers on their Income-tax assessments while taking a decision regarding filing an appeal. 5. The modifications shall come into effect from the date of issue of this Circular. This Circular will apply to SLPs/appeals to be filed henceforth in SC/HCs/Tribunal. It shall also apply to the SLPs/ appeals pending before Supreme Court/High Courts/Tribunal, which may accordingly be withdrawn. 6. The above may be brought to the notice of all concerned. 7. This issues under section 268A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. Hindi version will follow. (Divya Chaudhary) Deputy Secretary (ITJ) CBDT, New Delhi”

ITA 142/VIZ/2026 THE SRUNGAVARAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY 4. Since the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit, (which is also applicable to appeals against deletion of penalty), the Ld AR prayed that the appeal filed by the department should not be allowed to be proceeded with.

5.

Ld. Departmental Representative (hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”) after looking into the appeal records has no dispute regarding the quantum of tax effect.

6.

As such we hold that this appeal preferred by the Revenue does not comply with the above CBDT Circular, tax effect being less than the threshold limit of Rs.60 Lakhs, as such the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA UDAYAN DAS GUPTA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Visakhapatnam Dated: 12.06.2026 Giridhar, Sr.PS

ITA 142/VIZ/2026 THE SRUNGAVARAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY Copy to:

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX STREET, 1 ANAKAPALLE-531001, ANDHRA PRADESH

THE SRUNGAVARAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, 2 GANNAVARAM VILL, Y B AGRAHARAM POST, ANAKAPALLE-531115, ANDHRA PRADESH 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 271AAC(1)

All 1,211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →