SOMNATH DASBISWS, KOLKATA vs. LYKIS LIMITED, KOLKAAT

PDF

ITA 1208/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 July 2025AY 2015-16Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT due to (1) the order was passed and uploaded in ITBA system but it come to notice after 3-4 months (2) as online submission is a new thing to us, we were unaware of it, therefore it attributed to delay of some days, (3) non availability of assessment record. For the reasons stated above, a delay of two hundred sixty four (264) days in filing appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is occurred which may kindly be condoned.3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2015-16. The ITAT Registry noted a delay in filing, which was condoned after review of the reasons provided. The assessee subsequently objected, stating that the actual tax effect of the disputed additions was Rs. 58,13,889/-, which falls below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs for filing appeals by the Revenue.

Held

The Tribunal found that the tax effect on the disputed additions was indeed less than Rs. 60 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, which applies retrospectively. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The department was granted liberty to approach the ITAT if the case is later found to be covered under specific exceptions.

Key Issues

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable when the tax effect of the disputed additions is below the monetary threshold prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals.

Sections Cited

250, 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH”, KOLKATA

(Assessment Year 2015-16) DCIT, Circle 4(1), Kolkata, O/o Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-4(1), Kolkata, 8th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata – 700069 ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. M/s Lykis Limited, 14, N S Road, Kolkata – 700001 [PAN: AABCG0155C] ................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Jigar Mehta, AR Department represented by : Pradip Kumar Biswas, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 01.07.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 03.07.2025 O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

In this case, the ITAT Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 236 days which has been requested to be condoned as under:

This is Revenue’s appeal arising from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order dated 18.01.2023.

1.1 The Ld. AR has filed an initial objection regarding the computation of tax effect and has stated that the same is below the threshold limit for filing of appeals by the Revenue. The representation of the assessee may be extracted as under:

“At the outset, Your Honour's attention is invited to the fact that the aforesaid appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 18.01.2023 for AY 2015-16. Your Honour may note that the said matter has been fixed for hearing on 18.03.2025. In this regard, we wish to state that we have recently received a copy of Form 36 & Grounds of Appeal. On perusal of the Form 36, it is observed that the tax effect mentioned in Form 36 is Rs.62,83,488/-. However, the actual tax effect is in fact only Rs.58,13,889/-. In this regard, enclosing herewith the computation of tax effect along with relevant annexure, marked as Annexure "A". In this regard, we request Your Honour to kindly consider the aforesaid fact on records.” 1.2 On a previous date of hearing, the Ld. DR was requested to verify the tax effect in the case as it was mentioned by the Ld. AR that instead of Rs. 62,83,488/- the tax effect was actually Rs. 58,13,889/-. On the last date of hearing, the Ld. DR fairly mentioned that the tax effect was less than whatever was mentioned in Form 36.