DEPUTY COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. GODAVARI DEALCOM PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1687/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 January 2025AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The primary reason for dismissal was the non-maintainability of the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect by virtue of the relief granted by the CIT(A) was Rs. 30,68,000/-, which is less than the Rs. 60,00,000/- limit set by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. The learned DR did not dispute this fact and could not establish that the case fell under any of the exceptions provided in the circular. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal was not maintainable on account of the monetary limit. The Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue to file a Miscellaneous Application for revival of the appeal if, upon re-verification, the tax effect was found to be more than the limit or if the case fell under any exceptions, provided such application was filed within the time limit and as per law.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the DCIT, Central Circle, 3(2) Kolkata, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata, challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on April 8, 2024. This order was passed against the assessment order dated March 30, 2022, under sections 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal was initially noted as barred by limitation by 63 days, but upon review, the delay was found to be 34 days. The delay was attributed to administrative reasons, specifically late receipt of sanction to file the appeal. The assessee, Godavari Dealcom Private Limited, later submitted that the tax effect of the relief granted by the CIT(A) was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, making the appeal not maintainable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal, considering the tax effect of the relief granted by the CIT(A) and the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. The Revenue contended that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time after considering the delay and administrative reasons. The assessee argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect of the relief granted by the CIT(A), which was Rs. 30,68,000/-, was significantly below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, and that no exceptions mentioned in the circular applied. The Revenue, through the learned DR, did not dispute this fact and could not demonstrate any exceptions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT (A)") passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2020-21 dated 08.04.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act, dated 30.03.2022. 2. The registry has mentioned that the appeal is barred by limitation of time by 63 days. However, the perusal of the record shows that the appeal order dated 08/04/2024, was received in the office of the Pr. CIT, Central-2, Kolkata on 07/05/2024 and the appeal has been filed on 09/08/2024. Thus, the delay is only of 34 days. However, a further perusal of the response of the Ld. AO to the Defect Notice issued by the registry shows that the Ld. AO has calculated the delay of 63 days. The sanction for filing the appeal has been granted on 06/08/2024, and the appeal was filed on 09/08/2024. Thus, the delay was caused due to administrative reason of late receipt of sanction on 06/08/2024, and therefore, the delay is condoned as the Ld. AO had sufficient cause for the delay and the appeal is taken up for adjudication.

3.

After the hearing was concluded earlier on 17/10/2024, the assessee brought it to our attention on 07/01/2025 by written submission that the tax effect of ₹38,41,511 (including interest) falls significantly below the prescribed monetary limit for filing the appeal as per the CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17/09/2024 and, therefore, the Revenue's appeal is not maintainable under the provision of the circular. Accordingly, the case was fixed for clarification.

4.

We have gone through the facts of the case. It is noted from the record that the tax effect by virtue of the relief given by the first appellate authority is mentioned in Form No. 36 at Rs.30,68,000/- which is less than Rs.60,00,000/-. As per the CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 issued on 17th September, 2024, the CBDT has directed its subordinate authorities not to challenge the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal if the tax effect by virtue of relief granted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is less than Rs.60,00,000/-. Such order could only be challenged if it comes within any of the exceptions provided in the circular. The ld. DR, was fair enough not to dispute this fact on the basis of record and it could not be demonstrated that this case falls under any of the exceptions. Therefore, the Ld. AR argued that this appeal is not maintainable.

5.

On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we dismiss this appeal of the Revenue on account of monetary limit for filing of the appeal. However, in case on re-verification of the facts at the end of the Assessing Officer, it emerges that the tax effect is more than the limit for filing the appeal or this case falls in any of the exceptions provided in the circular, then the Revenue will be at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for revival of this appeal. Such application should be filed within the time limit provided in the Act and as per law soccer one never.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 22nd January, 2025 at Kolkata. (RAKESH MISHRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Kolkata, Dated *Bidhan, Sr.Ps

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →