What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it found that the tax effect was below the monetary limit and did not fall under any exceptions, making the appeal not maintainable.

The Revenue filed an appeal with a significant delay. The assessee argued that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals, as per CBDT circulars.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the low tax effect and whether it falls under any exceptions to the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

DCIT vs Toplight Merchantiles Private… | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Ladia, AR

For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Hearing: 15.04.2026Pronounced: 22.04.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 06.03.2025 for the AY 2019-20.

At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay of 228 days in filing the appeal by the department in support of which a condonation petition was filed. It was stated in the condonation petition that the delay has occurred due to obtaining the administrative approvals from the competent authorities, which took quite a long time and accordingly, the delay may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted vide letter dated 13.04.2026 as under:-

“To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. D Bench, Kolkata Re: Toplight Merchantiles Private Limited PAN: AABCT6103H AY: 2019-20 ITA No.: 159/Kol/2026

Sub: Tax effect involved in the appeal filed by the Department is below the monetary limit Dear Sirs, The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2019-20 in ITA No. 159/Kol/2026, is schedule for hearing before the Hon'ble 'D' Bench on 13th April, 2026. In this regard, it is submitted that, the tax effect involved in the present appeal is only Rs.29,48,311/- [which has been suo-moto acknowledged by the Department itself in their Grounds of Appeal] which is less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 60 Lacs. It is noted that the Department, while conceding that the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit, has nevertheless sought to invoke the exception contained in clause (h) of paragraph 3.1 of the CBDT Circular No. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 [copy of which is enclosed at Annexure 1). In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the exception under clause (h) applies only in cases involving claim of bogus capital gain/loss through penny stocks and cases of accommodation entries. In the instant case of the assessee, perusal of the assessment order dated 23.04.2021 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, shows that the case being made by the Department against the assessee does not involve any allegation of bogus long term capital gain or accommodation entries. It is thus submitted that the reliance placed by the Department on the exception (h) carved out under the CBDT Circular dated 15.03.2024 is factually misplaced. In view of the above facts and legal position, it is humbly submitted that the Revenue's appeal is not maintainable and ought to be dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect. Thanking you, Yours faithfully,” 4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the tax effect by virtue of relief given by the first appellate authority is less than Rs.60,00,000/-. As

On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we dismiss this appeal of the Revenue for want of tax effect. However, in case on re-verification of the facts at the end of the Assessing Officer, it comes out that tax effect is more or this case falls in any of the exceptions provided in this Instruction, then Revenue will be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application for revival of this appeal. Such 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 22.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 22.04.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TOPLIGHT MERCHANTILES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments