DCIT CC-1(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRIMARC PROJECTS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 62/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 October 2024AY 2019-203 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the tax effect being lower than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The reasoning was that the Department's representative could not controvert the assessee's contention that the appeal fell below the monetary threshold set by the circular. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limits in CBDT circulars are liable to be dismissed, unless they fall under specific exceptions. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if facts emerged indicating the appeal was adjudicable on merits based on the exceptions mentioned in the CBDT Circular. No other issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata 'C' Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata, dated 28.12.2023. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2019-20 and was filed with a delay of 87 days, which was condoned. The ITAT noted that the tax effect on the disputed additions was less than Rs. 60 lakh, falling below the monetary limits prescribed in CBDT's Circular No. 09/2024 for filing appeals by the Revenue. The Department's representative could not controvert the assessee's contention that the appeal was below the prescribed limit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal, considering the tax effect is below the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, and if not, whether the appeal should be dismissed on this ground? Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the appeal filed by the Revenue was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, making it not maintainable. The assessee relied on the said CBDT Circular. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's representative was asked to ascertain how the case was covered under the exceptions clause of the CBDT Circular. On the last date of hearing, the Revenue's representative could not controvert the assessee's contention that the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed in the said CBDT Circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE- & SRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: DR. Assessee represented by: Manish Tiwari, AR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT & SRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(S.S.)A. No.: 62/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata………..…………………………….Appellant Vs. Primarc Projects Pvt. Ltd......................................................Respondent [PAN: AADCP 8058 P] Appearances: Department represented by: Praveen Kishore, CIT DR. Assessee represented by: Manish Tiwari, AR. Date of concluding the hearing : October 16th, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : October 17th, 2024 ORDER Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member: The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 20, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)'] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') dated 28.12.2023. 1.1. There is a delay of 87 days in filing of this appeal, which has been requested for condonation through a detailed petition annexed to the form of appeal itself. In light of the reasons contained in this application, this appeal is admitted for adjudication.

I.T.(S.S.)A. No.: 62/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Primarc Projects Pvt. Ltd. 2. It is seen, at the outset, that the tax effect on the disputed additions before us is less than Rs. 60 lakh as prescribed in the CBDT’s latest Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 for filing appeals by the Revenue before this Tribunal. 2.1. This circular prescribes that the revised monetary limits shall apply retrospectively to pending appeals as well. 3. On an earlier date of hearing, the ld. D/R was asked to ascertain as to how this case was covered under the exceptions clause of said CBDT Circular. On the last date of hearing, the ld. D/R could not controvert the appellant’s contention that this appeal was below the limit prescribed in the said CBDT Circular. 4. In view of above stated position, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed u/s 268A of the Act because of tax effect lower than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra). However, the Department would be at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application in case facts come to light that indeed this appeal was adjudicable on merits, in terms of exceptions mentioned in the said CBDT Circular. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [Rajpal Yadav] [Sanjay Awasthi] Vice President Accountant Member Dated: 17.10.2024 Bidhan (P.S.)

Page 2 of 3

I.T.(S.S.)A. No.: 62/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Primarc Projects Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata. 2. Primarc Projects Pvt. Ltd., Primarc Square, 7th Floor, LA-1, Salt Lake City, Broadway Road, Bidhan Nagar, North 24 Parganas, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700098. 3. CIT(A)-20, Kolkata. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. //True copy // By order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata

Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 268A

All 3,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 268A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →