D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1), KOLKATA vs. ELITE TRAEXIM PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 113/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. This was primarily due to the tax effect in each appeal being less than ₹60,00,000/-, which is below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024 for challenging CIT(A) orders before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that these appeals did not fall within any of the exceptions provided in the said instruction. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for want of tax effect. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). It reasoned that in an unabated assessment, no additions can be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search. The Tribunal relied on the factual finding that no incriminating material was found during the search on the assessee, and the assessment was unabated on the date of the search. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make the additions. The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals of the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the DCIT, CC-3(1), filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A), Kolkata-21, for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The appeals concerned the relief granted by the CIT(A) to the assessee, Elite Traexim Private Limited. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in each appeal was less than ₹60,00,000/-. This was in contravention of CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024, which directs subordinate authorities not to challenge CIT(A) orders before the Tribunal if the tax effect is below this threshold, unless specific exceptions apply. The judgment states these cases did not fall under any exceptions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue's appeals are maintainable before the Tribunal, given that the tax effect of the relief granted by the CIT(A) is less than ₹60,00,000/-, as per CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024. Assessee's contention: The assessee did not explicitly argue on this point, but the Tribunal's decision implicitly accepted the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable based on the tax effect. Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued that additions were made based on statements recorded during a search and post-search inquiries. The Revenue did not explicitly argue on the maintainability of the appeals based on tax effect, but rather on the merits of the additions made by the AO. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to make additions in an unabated assessment, in the absence of any incriminating material found during a search conducted under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC), arguing that since the assessment was unabated at the time of search and no incriminating material was found, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contended that additions were made based on statements recorded during the search and material gathered during post-search inquiries.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Pranab Kumar Koley, DR
Hearing: 28.04.2026Pronounced: 20.05.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

Theseare appeals preferred by the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata- 21, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”]even dated 18.08.2025 for the AY 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18.

2.

At the outset, we observe from the grounds raised by the Revenue and records as placed before us that the tax effect in these appeals by virtue of relief given by the first appellate authority is less than ₹60,00,000/- each. As per CBDT Instruction bearing No. 9 of 2024 issued on 17th September, 2024, CBDT has directed its subordinate authorities not to challenge the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) before Tribunal if tax

3.

On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we dismiss these appeals 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 these cases fall in any of the exceptions provided in this Instruction. Then Revenue will be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications for revival of these appeals. Such application should be filed within the time limit provided in the Act.

4.

We also note that the ld. CIT (A) while deciding the issue has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 212(SC), while deleting the addition by recording factual finding of facts that a search was conducted on the assessee u/s 132(1) of the Act on 03.01.2019, however there was no incriminating material found during the course of search and this being an unabated assessment on the date of search therefore, the ld. AO has no jurisdiction to make the addition.

5.

The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the additions were made on the basis of statements recorded during the course of search and also on the basis of material gathered during the post search enquiry.

7.

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced on 20.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 20.05.2026 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

More judgments on Section 132(1)

All 846 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →