Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH” KOLKATA
vs. M/s Vital Enclave Private Limited, 2, Lal Bazar Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700001 [PAN: AADCV4580G] ..............…..…..................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Manoj Kataruka, AR Department represented by : Amuldeep Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 30.04.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 05.05.2025 ORDER PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The present appeal is related to be time barred by 123 days. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay dated 27.11.2024 through which it has been mentioned as to the administrative reasons leading to the delay.
1.1. We have carefully perused the petition presented before us and we deem it fit to condone the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
1.2 The present appeal emanates from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 Vital Enclave Private Limited of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2013-14, dated 28.05.2024 for which AY 2012-13, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 144/147 of the Act.
2.1 Right at the outset, it was pointed out by the Ld. AR that the total tax effect in this case was Rs. 25,20,000/-. It was pointed out that there was no application attached with the form of appeal to mention that this could be covered under the “exceptions” clause of the relevant CBDT Circular, which prescribes the tax amounts for filing appeal before various judicial forums.
2.2 The Ld. AR thus pointed out that this matter was pertaining to a tax effect of below Rs. 60 lacs. In fact, he placed on record two orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench, in which one of us was a co-author, to stress upon the fact that for the present appeal also, the same line has to be followed.
3 The Ld. DR requested that this matter should be disposed of on merit, rather than on account of low tax effect.
3.1. We find that the order relied upon by the Ld. AR pertains to dated 04.11.2024 in which the following finding has been given:
“3. It is seen, at the outset, that the tax effect on the disputed additions before us is less than Rs. 60 lakhs as prescribed in the CBDT’s latest Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 for filing appeals by the Revenue before this Tribunal. 3.1. This circular prescribes that the revised monetary limits shall apply retrospectively to pending appeals as well.
The ld. DR has also fairly stated that tax effect involved in appeals are less than the prescribed limit.
5. In view of above stated position, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed u/s 268A of the Act because of tax effect lower than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 (supra).
In case, at a later stage, it is found that these appeals are indeed covered under ‘exceptions’ then the department would be at liberty to move the ITAT with an MA for appropriate considerations.” 2 Vital Enclave Private Limited 4. Considering that this matter has an identical set of facts regarding low tax effect, we follow the order from which portions have been extracted (supra) and dismiss this appeal with the directive that in case at a later stage, it is found that this appeal is indeed covered under ‘exceptions’ then the department would be at liberty to move the ITAT with an MA for appropriate consideration.
In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 05.05.2025.