Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of ₹1,11,640/- made under Section 154/143(1) for AY 2020-21. This addition was related to employees' contributions to PF and ESI not deposited by the due dates, and the CIT(A) had relied on earlier decisions, allegedly ignoring the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect (₹40,571/-) was below the monetary limit of ₹60,00,000/- set by CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 for filing appeals, and the case did not fall under any of the specified exceptions. It was noted that the constitutional validity of the provisions was not challenged, and the issue was settled by the Apex Court.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition related to delayed deposit of employees' PF/ESI contributions, ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling on Section 36(1)(va) and Section 2(24)(x), and whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the low tax effect as per CBDT circulars.
Sections Cited
250, 154, 143(1), 36(1)(va), 2(24)(x)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: 30-June-2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 28.10.2024, which has been passed against the order u/s 154 of the Act, dated 17.03.2022.
On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we dismiss this appeal of the Revenue on account of low tax effect as the constitutional validity of the provisions are not under challenge but the issue has been settled in favour of the revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the case does not fall under any of the exceptions. However, in case on re-verification of the facts at the end of the Ld. Assessing Officer, it emerges that the tax effect is more than the limit for filing the appeal or this case falls under any of the exceptions provided in the instruction, then the Revenue will be at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall of this order and revival of the appeal. Such an application should be filed within the time limit provided in the Act.