DCIT(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE - 1(1), , KOLKATA vs. ANANDALOK , KOLKATA

Before Sri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Sri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT(Exemption), Circle-1(1), Kolkata…………..……………………...…........Appellant vs. ANANDALOK.…....……………… … ……………………................................Respondent DK-7/3, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700091. [PAN: AAATA5320P] Appearances by: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT, DR appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : March 31, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : March 31, 2022 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 31.08.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)].

2 It is seen at the outset that the tax effect on the disputed additions before us is less than Rs.50 lacs as the prescribed in the CBDT’s latest Circular No17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. It will be pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of the said Circular as follows:-

“2 . As a step toward further management of litigation, it has been decided by the Board that monetary limits for filing of appeals in income-tax cases be enhanced further through amendment in Para 3 of the Circular mentioned above and accordingly, the table for monetary limits specified in Para 3 of the Circular shall read as follows: S.No. Appeals/SLPs in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (Rs.) 1. Before Appellate Tribunal 50,00,000 2. Before High Court 1,00,00,000 3. Before Supreme Court 2,00,00,000

ANANDALOK Assessment Year: 2014-15 2.1 We find that intention behind the Circular No17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 needs to be understood in the following perspective:-

3. Further, with a view to provide parity in filing of appeals in scenarios where separate order is passed by higher appellate authorities for each assessment year vis- à-vis where composite order for more than one assessment year is passed, para 5 of the circular is substituted by the following para: “5. The Assessing Officer shall calculate the tax effect separately for every assessment year in respect of the disputed issues in the case of every assessee. if, the case of an assessee, the disputed issues arise in more than one assessment year, appeal can be filed in respect of such assessment year or years in which the tax effect in respect of the disputed issues exceeds the monetary limit specified in para 3. No. appeal shall be filed in respect of an assessment year or years in which the tax effect is less than the monetary limit specified in para 3. Further, even in the case of composite order of any High Court or appellate authority which involves more than one assessment year and common issues in more than one assessments year, no appeal shall be filed in respect of an assessment year or years in which the tax effect is less than the monetary limit specified in para 3. In case where a composite order/judgment involves more than one assessee, each assessee shall be dealt with separately.” 2.2. On perusal of the Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 and the materials available on record, it reveals that this circular makes it very clear that the revised monetary limits shall apply retrospectively to pending appeals as well. Hon’ble apex court in Commissioner of Customs vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd reported in 267 ITR 272 (SC) has settled the law that CBDT’s circulars are very much binding on revenue authorities.

“3. In this context, Board has decided that notwithstanding anything contained in any circular issued u/s 268A specifying monetary limits for filing of departmental appeals before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), High Courts and SLPs/appeals before Supreme Court, appeals may be filed on merits as an exception to said

ANANDALOK Assessment Year: 2014-15 circular, where Board, by way of special order direct filing of appeal on merits in cases involved in organised tax evasion activity.” However, the ld. DR has not brought on record any report/finding given by any Income Tax Authorities that this case involves organised tax evasion activity and further, no special permission/order of the CBDT directing the filing of the appeal, in the present case, has been brought on record. In view of this, we find that there is no merit in the above contention of the ld. DR.